The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant's defense counsel at the summary of the grounds for appeal asserted that, through the counsel's written opinion received by the court as of June 23, 2016, "the defendant's defense counsel at this court interfere with the defendant's business as of November 27, 2014 and December 12, 2014, the injured person's "the attachment of B" of the notice of the extension of the representative election term is not a legitimate business," and the reason for appeal is that it cannot be viewed as a legitimate ground for appeal as a new argument that was newly raised after the expiration of the period for submitting the appeal, and the ex officio examination is without merit.

A. On November 25, 2014, with regard to interference with one’s business on November 25, 2014, the Defendant, as indicated in this part of the facts charged, did not take a bath or disturbance, and did not go through a printed paper and sealed belt, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) As to the crime of injury, the Defendant, while engaging in a dispute with the victim, has frightened his hand over several times, frightening him, and frightening or pooring him. However, the degree of the assault inflicted by the Defendant does not constitute the crime of injury since the victim cannot suffer any injury as described in this part of the facts charged, and the victim’s upper part is naturally able to recover. As indicated in this part of the facts charged, the Defendant did not injure the victim’s face by damaging the victim in a night room or causing damage to the victim’s body with a frightened object. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below and the defense counsel at the court below asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below held the judgment related thereto under the title "the grounds for conviction" as follows.