The conviction in the judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

The sentence against the accused shall be 2,00,000 won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: Error of facts (as to interference with business around February 22, 2012, there is no fact that the Defendant interfered with the business of Victim K as shown in the facts charged), misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the destruction and damage of property, the Defendant had already been punished for the same crime as the facts charged in this part of the facts charged, and thus, again being punished in this case violates the principle of res judicata), and unfair sentencing.

Inspection: Meritorious legal principles (as to ordinary traffic obstruction, the Defendant’s act of blocking the progress of a vehicle travelling along a road by driving the three and four lanes on the four-lane road, constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic). 2. The judgment of this court

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court on the argument of mistake of facts, the Defendant, while under the influence of around 20:30 on February 22, 2012, entered the LF house operated by the victim K and asked for alcohol, and even before that time, the victim, who had been affected by the Defendant’s business obstruction, expressed the Defendant’s desire to go home to the victim, and made the Defendant go home at the above business place by taking a bath to the customer, and booming the customer, and the Defendant cannot be acknowledged the fact that the police continued to sit in the tables while under the influence of alcohol even after the victim’s report was dispatched to the scene, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in this regard is not sufficient to be punished by the crime of interference with business.

(2) On February 25, 2012, the summary of the allegation of misapprehension of the legal principles in the instant facts charged is that the Defendant damaged the Defendant’s repair cost of KRW 39,000, by taking the side walls of the 406 Public Notice Board as follows: (a) around 21:50 on February 25, 2012, the victim N, who is the general secretary of the Public Notice Board, would rapidly change the victim N, who is the general secretary of the Public Notice Board, into consideration; (b) and (c) thereby making the side walls of the Public Notice Board 406,