The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (seven months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of 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 it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015, etc.). The lower court determined a punishment by considering the following: (a) there are many criminal records of the Defendant who was punished for the same kind of crime; (b) the fact that the Defendant was committed again during the repeated crime period; (c) the fact that the victims did not endeavor to agree with or agree with the victim; (d) the crime of interference with business, assault, and the crime of injury was sentenced after the sentence was sentenced; and (e) the Defendant was given an opportunity to look back to his/her act after being sentenced to a fine for the crime of interference with business; (c) in the case of partial interference with business, the degree of interference with business is minor; and (d) the victim D does not want

In full view of various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the method and circumstance of committing a crime, and the circumstances after committing a crime, which are shown in the arguments at the lower court and the party hearing, the sentence imposed by the lower court is not hot within the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.