2. The judgment that recognized all of the crimes in this case, the Defendant committed the crime in this case without being aware of the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake in depth, the degree of interference with the Defendant’s business or insult is relatively excessive, the Defendant’s health is not good, and the Defendant is in an economic difficult situation, etc., and thus, the case was not easy for the police officers dispatched for the reason that the Defendant interfered with bath duty, or his bath duty, etc., the Defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime before, and in particular, the Defendant committed the crime in this case without being aware of the fact that the appellate court had been pending on May 29, 2015 due to the crime of interference with business, which became final and conclusive on May 29, 2015, and other various circumstances, such as the motive and circumstances leading up to the crime in this case, the circumstances after the crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, etc., and the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments, cannot be said to be excessive for sentencing against the Defendant.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition.

(However, in light of the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, it is clear that the entry of "1. concurrent crimes: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act is omitted," and thus, it is corrected to add it ex officio under Article 25 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure