The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is that the Defendant did not interfere with his duties by smoking the disturbance at the H restaurant operated by the victim E or the victim G, operated by the victim D.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court recognized that the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim Eerbs and H cafeteria operated by the victim G.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case is justifiable.

① The victim D stated to the effect that, since the investigative agency and the court of the court of the court below, the Defendant was able to see himself and herself, and the customer was able to be able to fluent. The victim G also saw the Defendant from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below to the court of the court below

The statement was made to the effect that she was unable to avoid disturbance, such as marching.

The above victims' statements are credibility in light of the specific and natural aspects of their contents.

② In the H restaurant, the Defendant reported the Defendant to the police, a guest who was in the restaurant to which the Defendant was the cafeteria.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.