2. The fact that the Defendant recognized all of his criminal acts, and that there was an agreement with the victims of interference with business, is the reason for sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant is not only guilty of a number of criminal records, including a number of criminal records, and of a fine, but also has a high possibility of criticism in that he/she again committed the instant crime even though he/she had committed a repeated crime at the time of the instant crime, and is making efforts to improve the character and conduct despite the repetition of violent inclinations upon the withdrawal of alcohol.

In light of the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, it is deemed that the Defendant’s above assertion is not reasonable, since the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s continuous crime appears to have been committed; (b) the lower court appears to have determined the punishment in consideration of all favorable circumstances for the Defendant; and (c) the reason to mitigate the punishment is not visible.

3. In conclusion, 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 without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.