The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant: (a) demanded money from the four-day shop run by the victimized party; (b) demanded money from the victimized party; and (c) obstructed the injured party’s business operation by taking the victim’s behavior through a large voice that leads to the demand for withdrawal from the victimized party.

Although the defendant had been punished several times, such as committing violence-related crimes, punishment has been committed, the crime of this case has been repeatedly committed without any reflectivity during the period of repeated crime due to a criminal offense committed by the obstruction of business affairs in the judgment of the court below.

In light of the fact that the crime of interference with business is a crime of a nature that causes a great damage to a person engaged in his/her occupation, even though the degree of damage is not severe, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to a sentence equivalent thereto.

However, the Defendant recognized all the crime of this case, and reflects his mistake, and the degree of damage caused by the crime of this case is heavy.

It is difficult to see it.

The defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by the agreement with the victim in the original trial.

The defendant committed the crime of this case in a situation where the defendant committed the crime of this case with poor economic conditions, such as old galms, while living together with old galms, etc. at the time of the crime of this case, and there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances.

In addition to these circumstances, the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee (one month to eight months) / [Determination of types] interference with duties (special person subject to sentencing): In full view of the following factors, the court below's punishment is somewhat inappropriate because of the following factors: the scope of punishment for the same repeated crime [the scope of recommended punishment] mitigated, and the amount of imprisonment for not more than eight months:

3. Conclusion.