The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-finding and legal principles (1) that a person who parked the instant vehicle under paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed as a substitute driver to have parked to the extent that the substitute driver cannot open a convenience store and enter the convenience store in accordance with the rule of experience. In fact, the parked photographs are parked on the left-hand side of the convenience store, and there is no parking lot to the extent that the convenience store cannot be opened, in addition to parking, there was no disturbance by separately entering the convenience store, and the damaged owner did not have made any statement and did not want punishment, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have interfered with the convenience store business by force by parking outside the convenience store as stated in the facts charged of the instant case. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) As to Article 3-A of the decision of the court below, the defendant parked the instant vehicle over India and the roadway as stated in this part of the facts charged. However, considering the fact that at the time of the instant case, multiple vehicles had already been parked on the side of the road on which the defendant parked in the form similar to that on which the defendant parked, the traffic became impossible due to the defendant's act.

Although it cannot be deemed that it was considerably difficult or considerably difficult, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, so it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. (1) Determination of paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below as to the crime of interference with business can lead to the suppression and confusion of a person’s free will.