2. The following are the circumstances that the Defendant recognized both of his mistake and reflects the fact that the Defendant infringed upon the house of the victim D who had been living in the past when the Defendant had been living in the past for repayment of the loan, and there are some circumstances to consider the motive and circumstance leading up to the crime of intrusion on residence, and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim D of intrusion on residence was extremely favorable to the Defendant in the course of investigation.

However, even though the defendant had been punished several times due to the previous crime of interference with business, he/she exercised considerable force at a restaurant, and re-offendered the crime of interference with business. Furthermore, the defendant committed the same kind of crime during the repeated crime such as the obstruction of business and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. The obstruction of business of this case is a crime committed while trial was conducted on the crime of intrusion upon residence and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (in particular, interference with business committed around October 12, 2016 is committed by the defendant around September 19, 2016, after arresting him/her as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (or an friendly) in the restaurant operated by the damaged person on September 19, 2016, the court below found the victim for the purpose of retaliation committed by the public prosecutor for one year from the third trial date of the court below, and found that the defendant did not suffer from considerable harm to the defendant's environment during his/her repeated crime of this case.