The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant was under guard at the time, and did not look at police officers.

On the part of interference with business, the bus article only requested cash receipts, but did not interfere with the business.

The sentence of the lower court (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, D, police officers: (a) the Defendant arrived at the site after receiving a report that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and reported that the Defendant obstructed the vehicle and sound on the road; (b) the Defendant was boarding the back seat of the patrol vehicle to stop the vehicle on the road; and (c) the Defendant, while driving the patrol vehicle on the back seat of the patrol vehicle in order to have the Defendant invalid, set up a patrol vehicle at one time, and drive the patrol vehicle on the earth; and (d) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, while the Defendant was on board the bus operated by G while under the influence of alcohol and demanded the issuance of cash receipt after getting cash of KRW 1,00,00 on the bus operated by G; (b) while the Defendant was able to return KRW 1,00,000 to the destination; (c) the Defendant continued to request the victim to issue cash receipts on the front seat of the patrol vehicle; and (d) subsequently, the Defendant was guilty of the Defendant’s movement to the entire customer, who led the victim to G.

Furthermore, a summary order is issued in consideration of various circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has been punished several times for the same crime, the fact that the defendant did not object to the denial of the crime of this case, the victims want to punish the defendant, and the fact that the defendant is a person with a disability of class 1 in the original trial.