The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to each crime listed in Article 1 of the judgment of the court below in misunderstanding of facts, the defendant's finding in the office of the victim Cagricultural cooperative is consistent with the judgment of the court below, but there is no interference with the business of avoiding disturbance, and as to each crime listed in Article 2 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant was assaulted by the victim E rather than the defendant, and the defendant was frightened before the defendant, and did not interfere with the victim E face. As to the crime listed in Article 3 of the judgment of the court below, the defendant is against the great interest within the health source of the operation of the victim FF, but it is not interfered with the business since the defendant did not

B. At the time of committing each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant was in a condition that he was unable to discern things or make decisions due to a stimulative disorder, and thus, the lower court did not recognize it, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts concerning the mental disorder.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport in the judgment of the lower court as to the assertion of mistake, and the lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the part on the part on the “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” and the part on the “judgment of the Defendant and his defense counsel,” and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant committed an disturbance due to the Defendant’s desire, dismissal, and return to the office that had been found in the office of the office of the victim CF office athhh. This constitutes an exercise of force by the victim CFC’s officers and employees to control free will in the course of performing their duties, which constitutes “comforcing force” under the crime of interference with business as an exercise of force that

(2) As to each of the crimes of Article 2 of the decision of the court below, the court below.