2. The crime of this case is deemed to interfere with the victim's taxi business by not getting out of 20 minutes of taxi and preventing the victim from getting out of other customers because the defendant committed the crime of this case with 10 persons, including civil petitioners, etc. who were waiting to undergo investigation in the earth while leaving the taxi at new wall time and tried to get out of the taxi without paying a taxi fee, and assaulting the victimJ's face one time, who is another taxi engineer, and neglecting the victim's desire to do so, and preventing the victim from getting out of other customers. The defendant does not seem to have been subject to punishment for the crime of this case by repeatedly taking into account the circumstances of the crime of this case, such as the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case without paying a taxi fee twice even though she was working as a taxi engineer, and that the defendant does not seem to have been subject to punishment for the same or similar crimes of this case. The defendant does not seem to have been subject to punishment for the same or similar crimes of this case, and there is no need to punish the defendant before and after the crime of this case.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.