The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant had talked with the victim in a large voice that the victim intending to give money to himself/herself and forced him/her, but did not interfere with the victim’s business by driving in a restaurant, such as as stated in the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, it can be recognized that the defendant was unable to stop the business on the day of the instant case by avoiding a disturbance for about 20 minutes, including where the defendant continued to receive the victim's demand that the victim scam, scambling, sound, and refund the meal cost from the victim, and that he was able to do so, and that the victim could not have been able to stop the business on the day.

According to this, it can be said that the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force, so this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, only the defendant has been punished once as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, is an element for sentencing favorable to the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant continued to deny the crime and did not reflect his mistake, and that the defendant did not agree with the victim is an element of sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, considering the various factors of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relationship, economic situation, etc., the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

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