The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of trial in the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the grounds delineated below, the Defendant asserts that the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of this case on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on justifiable acts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① In the case of insult, the Defendant did not have expressed the victim D’s desire, and immediately after the occurrence of the case, the Busan Northern Police Station agreed with the victim.

② In the case of interference with business, the Defendant raised an objection to confirm and point out the transaction details of one’s passbook at the time to the bank counter staff, which is merely a justifiable act.

③ In the case of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the Defendant filed a second accusation against the complainant of the instant case immediately after having been acquitted in the “case in which the Defendant was accused of the fraud”, and the Defendant did not properly investigate the case and resist it. The Defendant did not take a bath or have a disturbance in the police station and the criminal office, and thus, constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, first of all, the part of the facts charged in this case, including the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, the defendant d, E, and F's legal statement, etc., which was lawfully adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant d's obsing the victim D, who is a intellectual disabled person, with a large sound at the time and place as indicated in the judgment of the court below, and the head of the Tong F, sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant d's d's d's d's d', which is a intellectual disabled person, and the head of the Tong F, was witnessed. The defendant 1, 3, and 5 evidence submitted by the defendant at the court below alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition. Thus, this part

(2).