Defendant

The appeal by the prosecutor is dismissed.

The judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of attack because the defendant's mistake of the grounds for appeal did not return the drinking value to the defendant's act, but voluntarily returned the money.

No defendant may interfere with his business in a singing room operated by him.

The police and the victim have made a false case.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of the facts of the defendant's unfair sentencing: The defendant interfered with the victim's singing-making business by drinking in a singing room operated by the injured party, such as the victim's desire and shouldering the illness, and the victim alleged that he/she had brought about the money under the influence of alcohol and threatened the victim with the return of the drinking value; and the fact that the damaged party who suffered heavy drinking alcohol has returned to the defendant all the amount of KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000 won received from the defendant's daily behavior in a singing room to arrange the disturbance.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The lower court rendered a judgment as to each of the unfair arguments of sentencing, under the circumstances that are a crime during the period of repeated crime, and there was a record of punishment several times for the same crime, taking into account each of the favorable circumstances that the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, and determined a sentence by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: equity with the case of concurrent judgment, equity with the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) in which the judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant’s age,

The appellate court, compared to the first instance court, has no change in the conditions of sentencing, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the first instance sentencing judgment.

In the trial, the above sentencing conditions have changed.