The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the main point operated by the victim of mistake of facts, said that the Defendant would drink alcohol to the surrounding customers with a large amount of money, and did not interfere with the victim’s work, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the evidence presented by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts can be sufficiently recognized by the defendant, as stated in the facts charged of this case, that the defendant gets to drink at the main points operated by the victim C, and that he interfered with the victim's main points for about 1 hour and 30 minutes by force, such as taking time expenses to other customers, making them go from the above main points, etc.

Therefore, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts, and this part of the defendant's assertion

B. Compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not exceed the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new sentencing materials have not been submitted in the trial after the lower court was sentenced, and the grounds for sentencing alleged by the Defendant seem to be the circumstances that the lower court has already considered in determining the punishment.

In addition, considering the sentencing factors expressed in the proceedings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court is too so excessive that it exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.