2. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in light of the following: (a) the defendant could have been punished as an act of violence; (b) the defendant did not agree with the victims and did not make any effort to recover damage; (c) the crime of spitation, etc. in light of the criminal method, such as spitation, etc. in the face of police officers performing official duties; and (d) the defendant committed each crime of interference with business of this case in order to retaliation the victims who reported his criminal act to the police; (c) the defendant's age, family relation, economic situation, and all other matters concerning the sentencing specified in the records and arguments of this case, and thus the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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