The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s work by force by avoiding disturbance at the time, place, etc. recorded in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the penalty of KRW 100,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant received 12 reports to the effect that the defendant would avoid disturbance at the time and place recorded in the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and on the same day, 07:20 on the same day, "the customer does not drink," and 07:22 the police officer arrived at the scene, and the site was 07:47 was organized and terminated, but the 07:48 of the same day after the post was accepted, but the report was received to the effect that "the customer does not go to and go to the scene," and the fact that the police officer G arrived at the site, and the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim obstructed the victim's business by force due to force, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, even after arrival by the police officer, and considering the above facts, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's business by force.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below did not err in the misconception of facts as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Although there are no circumstances to consider the crime of this case against the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing, such as the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (for example, a person who commits a crime) in which the judgment has already become final and conclusive and the crime of this case ought to be considered at the same time in relation to concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the principle of equity with the case to be judged is to be considered.