beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged in this case, did not have any fact that he dances with the tables within the “EM” operated by the victim D, and that the Defendant d d d d d d d d sn, regardless of the Defendant’s act.
Furthermore, there was no intention to obstruct the defendant's business.
Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant had a disturbance, such as dancing between the table table and drinking, and making the rest of drinking and drinking to other customers, on the ground that the remaining liquor does not change from around 21:0 of December 28, 2012 to 23:30 of the same day from around 21:0 of the same day, it does not change to the beer with the beer operated by the victim D.
Furthermore, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it is difficult for the victim D’s investigative agency and the court below to believe that the statements made in accordance with the facts charged in the instant case are consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below. However, the victim D consistently made the same statements as stated in the facts charged in the instant case from the investigation agency to the court of the court below, and as alleged by the Defendant, it merely resisted that “it is possible to make the victim D be able to do so,” but it is difficult for D to understand that it was merely a refusal, and that it was difficult for D reported in 112 by itself. Furthermore, the Defendant received the statement made by the police officer who was dispatched to the site upon receiving the report at the time of the crime of interference with the business as above by the Defendant and received the report at the time of the crime of interference with the business as described in the foregoing 112 and breath, the Defendant, who