The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charges that the defendant interfered with the victim's business in collaboration with C, even though the defendant merely stated a dispute between the victim and C, and did not interfere with the victim's restaurant business, is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, in collaboration with C on November 22, 201, listened to the horses that payment of the drinking value from the victim F at the “E” general restaurant located in Seodaemun-gu D, Seodaemun-gu, “E” general restaurant; (b) C sees the victim that “the victim had performed a so-called funeral”; and (c) c strings the tables, c, with the victim’s chair, and the Defendant raised the speech and behavior, and caused the victim to become a customer, thereby interfering with the victim’s restaurant business by having the victim go against the disturbance.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of the Defendant’s partial statement, the witness C’s partial statement, and the witness F and G’s respective statutory statements.

3. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the political party is consistent from the police to the court of the trial, and that there is no act that interferes with the victim's business by putting C in the process of dispute between C and C and the victim.

C up to the time of the trial in the case of the party, the victim's restaurant was entitled to two other daily behaviors with the defendant and two other daily behaviors with the other person to drink the first place of drinking and to enter a more drinking, and the victim continued to request the victim to immediately calculate the drinking value of 35,500 won, and the victim's speech to the effect that he/she is about to flee because of his/her lack of the drinking value, and had the victim engage in the same behavior as stated in the remaining facts charged, and the defendant tried to restrain him/her from doing so, and he/she tried to fright up with the victim.