The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case committed by the Defendant, on the premise that the Defendant would purchase an exclusively damaged amount from those who repair the mobile phone in the vicinity of the mobile phone service center, and forced the victim, who operated the same kind of business at the entrance of the F, to refrain from engaging in the same kind of business at the entrance, by visping or assaulting him/her, and forced the victim not to engage in his/her business at the entrance, and the victim to interfere with the amount of the mobile phone under his/her own name. In light of the motive, circumstance, frequency, and duration, etc. of the crime, the liability for the crime is not weak.

In full view of all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime and consequence, degree of participation, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair because of the favorable circumstances (such as the Defendant’s profit derived from the instant crime, the degree of assault against the victim does not exceed the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility, and the agreement with the victim, etc.) that the Defendant committed the instant crime again within a period of three months after the completion of the execution of imprisonment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. 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.