2. Although the Defendant was led to the instant crime of interference with business, the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the same type of crime was repeated despite the history of punishment for interference with business already committed; (b) the nature of the crime is not good in light of the details of the crime revealed in the record and the method of the crime; and (c) the Defendant did not take any measures for recovery from damage up to the trial; and (d) other various sentencing conditions in the records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, family environment, and the circumstances before and after the crime.

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