The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbances, such as taking a bath as described in the facts charged, at a restaurant operated by the victim D (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant’s act of disturbance, such as taking a bath at the instant restaurant, as indicated in the facts charged, to the victim and the victim’s husband, and thereby obstructing the business of the victimized person’s restaurant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

1) The victim stated at the investigative agency that “the Defendant sought to the restaurant of this case and expressed to the effect that it would significantly interfere with the restaurant business by making the victim and F take a bath for about one hour.”

2) In the instant restaurant, the police officer, who reported the disturbance to F, sent the disturbance to F, prevented the Defendant.

However, after the police officer leaves the police officer, the defendant filed a report to F et al. on the 112th of that defect, and the police officer called the police officer, and the defendant was arrested as a current criminal.

3) The Defendant found at an investigative agency that he had found the instant restaurant in the instant restaurant for about one hour while drinking alcohol and expressed a bath to F. The Defendant acknowledged the facts charged at the lower court.

4) Prior to the instant case, the Defendant was subject to a disposition of notification by being subject to several times a disturbance at the instant restaurant, or punished by a fine by interfering with business affairs.

B. The injured party does not want to be punished against the Defendant for the wrongful argument of sentencing.

It is also the fact that the health of the defendant is not good.