2. In light of the judgment, it seems that the above victim did not want to be punished by the defendant under mutual agreement with the victim C of the crime of interference with business, and that the defendant compensated for the damage to the public goods. However, the court below already reduced part of the fine of the summary order against the defendant by taking account of all such circumstances. The above case was damaged by the police officer in the process of arresting the defendant as the crime of interference with business and damaged public goods within the police box, and the nature of the crime was extremely poor. The defendant had the record of being sentenced three times of fine due to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentencing of the court below is judged to be appropriate, and it is not unreasonable to deem it too too unreasonable.

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.