2. There are no new circumstances or changes in circumstances that can be reflected in the sentencing after the court below sentenced the judgment.

Not only the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime but also was the period of repeated crime due to the same crime even at the time of the crime in this case, and each act of interference with business has the nature of retaliation against victim D, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant confessions all of the crimes of this case and repents his mistake, and the victim of the crime of interference with business and the victim of the crime of interference with business agreed at the court below stage, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

In full view of such circumstances, the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to be excessively minor beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, taking into account various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship to victims, motive means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

The prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is not acceptable.

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