The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence (one million won penalty) imposed by the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case is determined by the Defendant’s request for the Defendant to provide credit to the victim, and the Defendant refused to provide credit, and the Defendant was found to be a restaurant operated by the injured party on the new wall following the following day, and thus obstructing the victim’s restaurant business by force by avoiding disturbance. In light of the background and method of the crime, etc., the issue is somewhat less in light of the following:

subsection (b) of this section.

Even though the defendant had been punished several times due to violent tendencys, such as interference with duties and injury, he/she committed the crime of this case, and even though he/she did not have a significant degree of damage to the crime of this case.

Even if such crime is a crime of a nature that causes a great pain to those engaged in their occupation, the defendant cannot be charged with criminal liability corresponding to such crime.

The lower court recognized the instant crime and determined a fine of KRW 1 million for the Defendant, taking into account the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, and the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment. Such sentencing by the lower court appears to have been conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion by taking into account all the circumstances regarding sentencing, which were revealed during the pleadings of the instant case, and otherwise, it is difficult to view that the circumstance that the Defendant suffered from depression and anti-competitive disorder, etc., as alleged in the first instance trial, and that the Defendant has no ability to pay a fine due to the lack of economic conditions, etc., constitutes a change in special circumstances that may change the sentencing of the lower court.

In full view of such various circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and various sentencing conditions as indicated in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s judgment was the first instance court.