A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (the fine of KRW 7 million for the crimes of April, 2, and 3 as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The judgment is a favorable circumstance where the Defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case and against the mistake, the victim D’s injury is not much severe, and the crime of interference with business among the crimes in the judgment of the court below against the Defendant and the crime of insult should be considered at the same time as the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (road Assault, etc.) in the judgment of the court below.

On the other hand, considering the motive for the crime, such as supporting the victim D's timber on the ground of influence, risk of criminal law, etc., the defendant committed the crime of interference with and insult of the business of this case without being aware even though he was in the period of suspension of execution, and the defendant did not reach an agreement with the victims, and the defendant did not take any measures to recover damage, and the defendant has been punished more than ten times for the same crime.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and all the conditions of sentencing as seen in the instant records and arguments, including the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentence is too heavy or unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, they are all dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.