A. In fact, the Defendant does not interfere with the victim’s work and insult the victim as stated in the first instance court.

B. The first instance court’s punishment of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the fact that the Defendant obstructed the victim’s clothes sales business by force by means of force on the part of the store operated by the victim, such as paragraphs 1 and 3 of the first instance court’s ruling, and that the Defendant obstructed the victim’s clothes sales business through fraudulent means by making goods refunded to the mountain customer at the victim store, such as Paragraph 2 of the first instance court’s ruling, and that the Defendant abused the victim, such as Paragraph 4 of the first instance judgment, can be sufficiently recognized.

The evidence alone presented by the defendant at the trial is insufficient to reverse the recognition of the above crime.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant denied the crime and did not repent of the mistake, and did not agree with the victim.

There is no change in circumstances that can be newly considered in sentencing after the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, in full view of the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances of crimes, details, results, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, the first instance sentence is too unreasonable.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit