The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to cases involving obstruction of business, etc., the Defendant’s defense counsel stated in the summary of the pleadings as of September 10, 2015, that the police officer, in the course of arresting the Defendant in the act of obstruction of business, refers to the summary of the crime, the reason for detention, and the opportunity to defend himself/herself, and did not have any opportunity to defend himself/herself, the arrest of an offender in the act of obstruction of business, and thus, is unlawful. However, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal due to the assertion that was raised after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal was expired. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the police officer informed the Defendant of the summary of the crime, the reason for arrest, etc.

The defendant did not engage in any act interfering with business, such as taking the victim's bath or taking the victim's bath at the D key points operated by the victim E, or raising trial expenses to the customers of other tables, and there is no fact that the defendant assaulted the police officer dispatched.

B. As to the case of obstruction of business in 2014 high-level 1117, the Defendant did not take a bath at the W main shop operated by the victim I, and did not interfere with the restaurant business by avoiding disturbance.

C. With respect to the case of violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, the Defendant did not have committed an act of disturbing the police box by passing the Defendant with scambling at the Facs box.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed through evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the part of the claim regarding interference with business affairs, etc.: (i) the victim E operating a DNA store from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court stated to the effect that “the Defendant interfered with the business, such as drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol to himself/herself; and (ii) the Defendant: (a) the victim E operating a DNA store consistently stated to the effect that “the Defendant interfered with the business, such as drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol to his/her customers after drinking alcohol; and (b) the Defendant: