2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). It is recognized that the Defendant reflects his/her wrong, the Defendant received letters from the victims of obstruction of business and assault, and the Defendant’s consciousness wanting to have the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant.

However, the Defendant may be punished for committing violent crimes, including imprisonment with prison labor, and the crime of this case constitutes the same repeated crime. In particular, the Defendant committed the crime of interference with business during the period of repeated crime, which is related to the crime that “the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million as the crime of interference with business from the Seo branch of the Daegu District Court on May 2, 2019 to a fine of KRW 3 million as the crime of interference with business,” which is stated in the criminal records of the lower judgment during the trial (Seoul District Court 2019No1822), and the judgment of the Prosecutor and the Defendant appealed and dismissed all the Defendant’s appeal on January 10, 2020, became final and conclusive on January 18, 2020.

In other words, each of the crimes of this case was committed.

A defendant may not be held liable for any serious liability corresponding to him/her because he/she has neglected law and has continued to commit violent crimes.

In addition to the fact that there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the court below was rendered, taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, occupation, family relation, health ( alcohol dependence, etc.) and criminal records, the sentence of the court below against the defendant is not heavy.

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

(b).