The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely requested an interview with the person in charge of business regarding compensation for damages and relocation measures following the Defendant’s compulsory removal of his residence, etc., and in collusion with B, C, D, E,F and G as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not interfere with his employees’ duties or did not comply with his request for withdrawal. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case as erroneous facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, such as the defendant's statement in the court below acknowledged the facts charged of this case, the victim's employee I's statement in investigation agency, each video material (USB), and noise measurement photographs, etc., which acknowledged the facts charged of this case, the defendant can interfere with his/her duties in the victim's office, etc. as stated in each of the facts charged of this case and sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she did not comply with his/her request for eviction.

B. The fact that the Defendant had no record of any particular criminal punishment until the date of determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is still subject to removal of the Defendant’s residence, and the Defendant appears to have avoided the instant business and prevented the Defendant from committing a crime refusing to comply with the request for compensation, etc. is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the degree of damage suffered by the victim is small due to the crime of this case, such as the defendant's repeated interference with the affairs of the victim and the defendant's refusal to leave over several times.

In full view of the fact that it is difficult to see the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court rendered a sentence.