The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

The defendant was divorced and sent the child support to all the wife every month.

Although there are several criminal records, the defendant is realizing that all of them are caused by alcohol, and the defendant gets off the alcoholic beverage in the future.

The Defendant committed the instant crime by contingently, did not focus on the degree of interference with business, and the victim of the obstruction of business and assault expressed his intention not to be punished.

In light of this, the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Although the instant facts charged were recognized when the trial was held, there is no significant change in the terms of sentencing compared to the lower court’s judgment even if the materials submitted at the trial were considered, and in full view of all the reasons indicated in the record of the instant case’s sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it cannot be deemed that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.