The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not commit the instant crime in collusion with G, etc., on the part of the members' shares among Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “D shop”) where the president G, CW, director X, etc. of H Co., Ltd. and C Co., Ltd. mobilized disabled persons, service center, etc. to interfere with the business of the victim company or invaded on the said commercial building.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the defendant and his defense counsel made the same assertion as the above reasons for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail by clarifying the decision in the judgment. In light of the records comparing it with the various evidences adopted through legitimate evidence examination, the judgment of the court below is just, and the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. There is no history of punishment exceeding a fine on the assertion of unfair sentencing; the victim company and the service company used the employees of the disabled and the service company in order to resolve the conflict between the interests of the other parties in physical force; and the crime of this case was committed in the instant shopping district by using a large number of power systematically, or the crime of this case was committed in the course of the police investigation, and the defendant's escape from the police investigation is likely to cause confusion in the investigation; the defendant seems to bring about confusion in the investigation; the defendant's escape is fair punishment among the accomplices, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, the background of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime, do not seem to be too heavy.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.