2. The crime of this case is to force the victim G who had engaged in the purchase of liquid damages at the entrance of the F, in collusion with A, etc., to refrain from engaging in the business at the scene, by visping or assaulting the victim G who had engaged in the purchase of liquid damages at the entrance of the F. The crime of this case is to force the victim G who had engaged in the purchase of liquid damages at the entrance of the F.

It is reasonable to consider when determining the scope of specific criminal liability against the defendant, such as the following: (a) the defendant committed the crime of this case and agreed upon with all victims; (b) there is no benefit from the crime of this case; (c) the wife consciousness and the mother should support the defendant; and (d) the decision to revoke the suspended sentence sentenced by the Seoul High Court on July 19, 2013 (two years and six months of imprisonment and four years of suspended execution) was issued on July 19, 2013 and the suspended sentence should be imposed.

① However, in light of the motive, background, frequency, period, etc. of the instant crime, the Defendant was not less and more likely to be subject to criticism in that he committed the instant crime, such as joining the instant criminal organization during the period of probation, and ② the Defendant is disqualified for probation, and thus, cannot be sentenced to a suspended sentence, and no longer can be mitigated since there are no legal grounds for mitigation. In light of the above, the Defendant’s argument that the sentencing of the lower court, which sentenced to discretionary mitigation, by taking account of the favorable circumstances as seen earlier, is unreasonable, cannot be accepted.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.