The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

On January 8, 2015, the defendant, who misleads the defendant as to the summary of the grounds for appeal, only made an objection from an employee at the convenience store operated by the victim C, and did not act to obstruct the business.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of interference with business among the facts charged in the instant case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of the court below that sentenced fine of KRW 3,000,000 to the illegal defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake on the facts reveals the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the victim C: (a) stated that the Defendant’s female-friendly group asked two tobacco “A” to the convenience store and only one employee was unable to sell tobacco; (b) again, the Defendant sold tobacco again with the Defendant’s defect that “A” did not sell tobacco at the convenience store; and (c) sold tobacco in mind without selling the two tobacco from the beginning.

‘Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre, Irre;

It interfered with the business by avoiding approximately 20 minutes of silvers, such as "I ambling off the dog,"

“The Defendant was able to do so, and even on the day of the instant case, the Defendant took a serious bath while doing so.

“The Defendant could not normally engage in the business for customers to continue to engage in the business by carrying out his or her employees, leaving his or her employees, leaving his or her body while carrying out a serious bath.”

Inasmuch as “the statement is made,” the contents of the statement are not specific and contradictory, and there is no motive or reason to mislead the defendant by reporting false facts, so the credibility of the statement can be recognized. ② The defendant made a legitimate objection to an employee of convenience stores, rather than the employee made a serious desire for the defendant, the victim C is an employee.