The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the business of the main points of this case, and the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the main points of this case because it was in front of a toilet away from the main points of this case, and thus did not interfere with the business of the main points of this case.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of business among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Recognizing the facts duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are found as follows: (i) preventing the Defendant from entering the toilet, namely, (ii) preventing the Defendant from entering the toilet; (iii) harming the Defendant’s desire to commit these acts to the employee; and (iv) assaulting the Defendant’s friendship with the Defendant’s desire to commit these acts; (v) no more than 20 minutes of the customers who were in the main place where the Defendant got out of the toilet and come to the main place; and (v) not only other people but also customers who were in the main place where the Defendant was aware that the Defendant had been able to avoid disturbance; and (vi) considering the fact that the main place of the instant case and the Defendant were in front of or near the main place where the Defendant got out of the toilet, it appears that the Defendant could interfere with the Defendant’s business with the intent of interfering with the business.