The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of litigation for the original judgment and the party deliberation shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, since the victim had already posted a parking control boiler on the Defendant’s vehicle, the victim’s duty to regulate the vehicle of alcohol has already been terminated, the victim did not interfere with the victim’s business because of the victim’s first time, and the victim’s injury was not related to the instant case, but did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing (Punishment of the lower court: fine of KRW 3,00,000)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

On the basis of the evidence set forth in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the evidence set forth in its reasoning, interfered with the legitimate parking control duties of the victim by scaming the victim's chest and head by scambling the victim's breast and head by hand and scambling the hand, and at the same time interfered with the victim's legitimate parking control duties by causing approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim.

In view of the facts charged of this case, the charges of this case were convicted.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence of CCTV CD images duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Defendant

The argument is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the lower court: (a) the Defendant interfered with the duty of regulating spirits vehicles by inflicting an injury on his/her personnel for the purpose of regulating his/her illegal vehicles; (b) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the circumstances and content of the crime; (c) the CCTV images examined by the lower court clearly stated the victim’s assault with the victim; and (d) the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same crime of violence; and (c) there is no pening.