2. The Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, obstructed the victim’s influoring business by breaking a sculing a sculbly boomed by booming the patient’s disease, setting up the guest room doors boomed by other customers, and flying off the guest room doors boomed by other customers.

The crime is hot in light of the purpose and content of the crime, the degree of interference with the business, etc.

The victim suffered a considerable mental suffering due to the crime of this case.

Even though the defendant did not agree with the victim or take measures to recover damage, he/she did not receive a letter from the victim.

In addition, the defendant committed the crime of this case against the victim who had no error in drinking even during the period of repeated crime due to the crime of obstruction of business, etc. without making any effort to improve his personality and behavior even though he had been punished several times, such as taking a prison sentence against the crime related to violence, and it seems that the awareness of the social responsibility and compliance consciousness of the defendant seems to be considerably lacking, and there seems to be no social relation to prevent the defendant from repeating the crime, such as where the defendant is married with his family for a long time without having contact with his family.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, the application of the sentencing guidelines according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee (one year to three years) is as indicated in the judgment of the court below.

In light of the defendant's act and the degree of responsibility, the sentencing of the court below that determined a somewhat lower sentence cannot be deemed to be unfair because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit and thus dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.