The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the original adjudication, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s restaurant business by force as stated in the facts constituting a crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below can fully recognize the fact that the defendant interfered with the business of the victim's restaurant, such as the statement of facts in the original

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. It is reasonable to respect the allegation of unfair sentencing in cases 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.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower court, based on the foregoing legal doctrine, determined the sentence by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even if considering all the sentencing factors indicated in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the sentencing of the lower court does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.