2. The crime of this case is a matter that interferes with the victim’s restaurant business by force by inducing the victim to be subject to criminal punishment due to insult by submitting a written statement to the police by the victim, threatening the victim for the purpose of retaliation, taking a bath, etc.

The court below, under the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, found the defendant guilty of the crime in this case under the influence of alcohol without making every effort to improve his personality and conduct even though he had been punished several times, and without making every effort to improve his personality and conduct during the repeated crime due to insult. The crime of interference with business is a crime of a nature that causes a serious pain to the people engaged in livelihood in good faith even though the degree of damage to each individual crime is not severe, and the act of intimidation purposes is a serious crime that threatens the proper exercise of the State's penal authority, and is a serious crime that causes a threat to the proper exercise of the State's penal authority, which may cause the general public to use legitimate investigative and judicial procedures. Thus, it is difficult for the general public to hold the defendant accountable for such crime. ② under favorable circumstances, the defendant appears to have committed the crime in this case under the influence of the victim, which reflects his wrongness by recognizing the victim and the victim, and thus, it appears that the defendant did not want to suffer from the disease in this case under the influence of investigation agencies and the defendant's intent to commit the crime.