2. The victim D agreed with the Defendant.

The defendant's mistake is divided.

It is recognized that the defendant suffers from stimulative disorder for a long time.

However, the defendant, without any particular reason, interferes with another person's business under the influence of alcohol, and the responsibility for the crime of avoiding disturbance at a police station is not against the law.

The Defendant committed a crime of interference with the business of the victim G because he was investigated by the police without two months after being examined by the police due to the crime of interference with the business of the victim G, and committed a crime of interference with the business of the victim D without returning home even after being requested by the police officers due to the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

The possibility of criticism is greater in view of the fact that the defendant has a record of being punished more than once as a crime of the same kind, and the judgment of suspended execution becomes final and conclusive, and commits a crime again at least ten days.

In full view of such circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant pleadings, including the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s sentence against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

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