The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. Although the Defendant did not interfere with the business as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including the Defendant’s act, content of damage, situation before and after the commission of the crime, attitude to make a false statement in the court of the lower court, and the fact that there seems to be any circumstance to make a false statement in the said statement, etc., it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant interfered with the victims’ securities business as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the lower court.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

2. Determination as to the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing

A. Improper argument of sentencing is unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court (1.5 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the following circumstances, in full view of the Defendant’s age, career, developments leading up to the commission of the offense, method of punishment, records of punishment, and all other matters pertaining to the sentencing as indicated in the instant records and theories of change, the Defendant’s improper assertion on sentencing is not acceptable, since the Defendant’s sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

0 victims are punished by the defendant.

The sentence determined by the first instance court seems to have taken into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant (such as elderly people) and there is no special change or circumstance that can be newly considered in the sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.