2. It is recognized that the Defendant was aware of all the crimes of this case and against the mistake, the fact that the Defendant appears to have reached a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim of the crime of interference with business affairs.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant has already been sentenced one time to suspend the execution of a crime of violence, etc., and three times to a sentence; (b) the Defendant committed a crime without being aware of the fact that the Defendant committed a repeated crime, such as committing the instant crime on May 14, 2015, after being sentenced to a fine for bodily injury on the part of the Defendant; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime on the part of the victim; (d) the Defendant was unable to use it from the victim of the assault; and (e) the Defendant’s age, career, and environment, which are the conditions for sentencing, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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