The punishment of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is recognized that the Defendant’s crime of this case committed the crime of this case, even though the Defendant had been 10 times criminal records of violence and had been 1 million won or more due to interference with business even around 2016, because the Defendant again committed the crime of this case, since the Defendant was able to smoke in the restaurant operated by the victim, she was able to take a bath to the victim, she was able to see beyond the partitions installed in the restaurant, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbance by taking the victim’s clothes. In light of the method and content of the crime, etc., the crime of this case is considerably poor.

However, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have the attitude of recognizing the instant crime in an investigative agency and against the mistake; (b) the instant crime is a single-time crime interfering with business; (c) the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background leading to the instant crime; (b) the means and consequence of the instant crime; and (c) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed unreasonable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.