The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution regarding the assault of “2018 Highest 1059,” and rendered a judgment of conviction as to the remainder of the facts charged.

Since the defendant appealed only against the guilty portion, the defendant cannot appeal against the judgment dismissing the public prosecution (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do3076 delivered on December 13, 1983). Of the judgment below, the dismissal portion of the public prosecution became separated and confirmed as it is and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. In a case 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, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The fact that the Defendant is against the recognition of each of the instant crimes, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim K of the crime of interference with business affairs, and that the Defendant agreed with the victim K of the crime of refusing to withdraw.

However, each of the crimes of this case is not only the defendant interfered with the operation of the restaurant on two occasions, but also the defendant's refusal to leave the restaurant at the main point, and is insulting to the police dispatched after receiving a report, and thus the crime is bad, and the defendant has already been subject to criminal punishment several times due to violent crimes. In particular, on February 5, 2015, the Busan District Court was sentenced to two years of suspended execution and orders for surveillance of protection in the six months of imprisonment with prison labor for property damage, etc. at the Busan District Court on February 13, 2015, which became final and conclusive on February 13, 2015, and again committed each of the crimes of this case at least one year of suspended execution, and the victim F and I want to be punished against the defendant.

The lower court appears to have determined the sentence in consideration of all the above circumstances, and did not submit new sentencing data in the first instance.