A. In relation to the crime of interference with business against the victim B and the insult against E in the judgment of the court below, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant only saw that he would go against her free will, but did not avoid any disturbance to the extent that she could interfere with the victim B’s carpet business, or she expressed a desire to the victim E. In relation to the crime of interference with business against the victim F and assault in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant made an objection against the victim F who takes a bath against her, and there was no fact that the Defendant did not assault the said victim or interfere with the convenience store business to the extent that she did not interfere with her business.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, i.e., the crime of interference with business with business against the victim B and the crime of insult against the victim E, which the court below duly adopted and investigated, (i) the victim B and E make a statement consistent and specifically consistent with each of the facts charged in this part from the investigative agency to the court below, (ii) the victim B and E not only coincide with each other, but also there is no motive or reason for the victim to make a false statement at the risk of the risk of perjury, and (iii) the defendant recognizes the fact that the victim voluntarily made a false statement at the risk of the risk of perjury, i.e., the victim Eul and E, a police officer dispatched after receiving a report, as described in each of the facts charged. This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.