2. Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The degree of interference with the instant business is not limited. However, the instant crime is likely to interfere with the victim’s business by only the defendant has a conflict with the problem of regulating illegal street occupation, and the defendant was sentenced six months to imprisonment with prison labor for the same victim on February 10, 2017 due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the same victim) and a obstruction of business, etc. on April 10, 2017, and thus, it is inevitable to repeat the instant crime without being aware of the completion of the execution of the sentence, and thus, it is inevitable to have been punished from the victim of the same kind and similar criminal offense.

If there is no new change in circumstances that may change the sentence of the court below in the trial at the court below, and the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, occupation, living environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (one year to three years and six months), the sentence imposed by the court below is conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion, and is not hot.

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