2. In the case of the crime of interference with business of September 21, 2018 among the crimes of this case, the fact that the defendant visited to the same C Union that the defendant interfered with business for the purpose of apologying the crime before the previous C Union that the defendant interfered with business, and that the defendant was not guilty of committing the crime of this case during the repeated crime period, that the defendant was not guilty of committing the crime of this case, that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victims, that the defendant has a force of violence and interference with business, etc.

On the other hand, in the case of the crime of injury, the balance between the case of the violation of the Medical Service Act and the case of the judgment shall be considered, and the fact that the defendant appears to have paid some medical expenses to the victim of the crime of injury

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family environment, motive and background of the offense, circumstances after the offense, and the Defendant’s health condition, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable on the grounds that the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.