The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act did not reach the degree of interference with business in light of the fact that the Defendant made a call as stated in the facts charged, but in light of the fact that the time was shorter, and that it was to cope with the verbal abuse of public officials.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant interfered with the public official’s duties due to the same act as the facts charged, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s telephone attitude, content and frequency; (b) the Defendant expressed a desire to a public official who received a telephone; and (c) the public official in charge would have caused considerable anxiety

Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

B. In full view of the following factors: (a) the scale and degree of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant did not seriously reflect the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentencing cannot be deemed to be unfair as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, as it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's above assertion also is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.