A. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles only intended to engage in driving at a restaurant operated by the victim D, and there is no need to interfere with the business of the restaurant while bringing customers desire to do so.

On July 1, 2014, the Defendant entered a restaurant operated by the Victim F on two occasions, but there is no room to obstruct the operation of the restaurant, and the Defendant was aware that the victim consented, and not boomed on credit. The victim H’s cellular phone is H’s own phone, which is far away from H and Si, and the Defendant did not damage it on the floor.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all facts by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the judgment of the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, particularly according to the testimony of H, F, and D of the witness of the court below which is the victims, and the police statement of F, it can be recognized that the business obstruction, public conflict, and damage as stated in each criminal facts in the judgment of the court below are all recognized, and no other error of law or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant

B. Although the Defendant’s wrong determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is against the Defendant, and some victims do not want to punish the Defendant, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes again even though he was under suspension of execution, even though he was punished for the same kind of crime.

In addition, the quality of each of the crimes of this case is also not good for drinking alcohol and inducing citizens.

In full view of all such circumstances and various circumstances as the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, including the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, career, and family environment, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too vague.