The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the crime of interference with the business of the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant knew that he was selling alcoholic beverages in the singing music of the victim's operation and thus did not intend to commit a false report or interfere with the business, is erroneous in the misapprehension of

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the lower court and the appellate court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence on the assertion of facts: (i) the Defendant was operating “Bing” in the vicinity of the instant singing room at the time of reporting to the 112 comprehensive situation room operated by the injured party; and (ii) the Defendant reported on March 8, 2016 to the effect that “the Defendant is under custody of the Esing store and cooling house and sells alcoholic beverages, so that it is under control” (Evidence 33 page of the evidence record); (iii) on December 2, 2016, the Defendant sold or confirmed the instant alcoholic beverages by entering the instant singing room with no alcohol, but with no alcohol, the Defendant’s report to the effect that “The instant alcoholic beverages are under control by the police,” and (iv) the Defendant’s report to the effect that the instant alcoholic beverages were under control upon the entry of the instant alcoholic beverages to the effect that “the instant alcoholic beverages are under control by means of a very sing machine.” (i.e., the instant report to the effect of the instant alcoholic beverages.