2. The fact that each of the crimes of this case was committed without being aware of during the period of repeated crime due to the same kind of crime, the fact that there was a record of criminal punishment several times due to the same crime, and that there was no agreement with the victims, etc. are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, in full view of the facts that the crime is recognized and is against the law, and each crime of interference with business and intimidation is to be considered in equity with the case where the first head of the crime in the judgment of the court below, which is in the relationship of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, is judged concurrently with the case where the crime is judged at the same time as the crime of larceny in the judgment of the court below, and the defendant seems to repeat the same crime due to the symptoms of existence and polar disorder of alcohol, while the defendant also recognized the problem and endeavored to treat it, the general criminal punishment of the same and similar cases in the same kind as the favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is difficult to view that the sentence of the court below is unfair because

Therefore, the prosecutor's above argument of sentencing is without merit.

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