2. Determination

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (B)

The lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s mistake and resisted; (b) the Defendant did not want to be punished against the Defendant by mutual agreement with the victims of the 2019 Go-Ma187 Incident; and (c) the damage of property damage and business obstruction appears to be relatively minor; (d) there are a majority of the violent districts of the penalty; (b) the Defendant repeated the same type of crime before and after the lapse of two months after having been sentenced to imprisonment for one year due to the crime of interference with business, etc.; (c) the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender due to property damage and damage on August 10, 2019; and (d) the Defendant committed an act of interference with business as of September 11, 2019, even though he was released, in addition to each of the instant crimes, the Defendant committed an act of interference with business six times more in the state of de facto exploitation, but the victims did not want to receive the instant treatment or have minor damage to

C. Based on the above legal principle, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions in comparison with the court below (a defendant's claim that the state of mental disability should be considered as a reason for sentencing, but according to the records, the defendant seems not to be in a state of mental disability). Other factors revealed in the arguments of this case, such as the balance of sentencing with the same kind of crime, the age, character and conduct of the defendant, motive for the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., even if considering the above factors of sentencing revealed in the proceedings of this case, the court below's punishment

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing.