2. As to the grounds for appeal, there are extenuating circumstances such as the following: (a) the Defendant recognized a mistake to have been repented; (b) he listened to bad horses from the main employee; and (c) he committed a crime of interference with business of this case in a contingent manner; (d) he agreed with the victim of interference with business; and (e) his parents who have not good health conditions and his parents and the disabled who should support the form of a disabled person; and (e) his parents are economically difficult.

However, on the other hand, the Defendant’s main employees expressed a large amount of disturbance, such as booming the entrance, cutting off the entrance, etc., and assaulting the police officer by pushing the police officer, leading the arms, etc., and there is a need to strictly punish crimes resistanceing the public authority that duly enforce the law. Examining the conditions of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court is appropriate, and the determination of the sentence is not 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.