A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to six months from February 18, 201 to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. in the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch on the grounds of the crime of interference with business, etc. on July 10, 201, and completed the execution of the above sentence in the Ganpo Prison on July 10, 201. The lower court erred in the omission of aggravation of the aggravation of a repeated offense as to the crime of conflict, and the crime of attempted conflict in the judgment of the lower court, within three years from the completion

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court shall be as shown in the respective columns of the judgment below.

Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act is quoted as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 352 and 350(1) of the Criminal Act ( point of conflict), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime, the choice of punishment ( point of interference with business), Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act of Aggravation of Cumulative Offense

1. While the reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act among concurrent crimes have been punished several times due to violent crimes, etc., the Defendant committed the instant crime of extortion without being aware of the period of repeated crimes, the Defendant committed the instant crime of extortion without being aware of it during the period of repeated crimes, such as being committed by organized violence, etc., and the Defendant was bad in the course of committing the crime, and the Defendant, who is the wife of the victim D, wanted the Defendant’s wife, but there is no material to deem that the victims’ damage was recovered.

However, the defendant.