The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a crime that the lower court found guilty.

In so doing, the court below erred by violating the Constitution, laws, orders, and rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime against mental or physical disability is in the state of mental or physical disorder (e.g., the state of mental or physical disorder).

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, since the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he interfered with the victim's business by force over about 25 minutes, such as taking the victim's bath and taking tobacco as stated in the judgment of the court below, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, it is recognized that the defendant was aware of drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

C. If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court’s failure to submit new sentencing data at the trial and the lower court. In full view of the factors revealed in the argument in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing is too excessive and so it does not seem that the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant.