The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of the court below (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, upon the victim’s report, extracted the victim’s restaurant for the purpose of any retaliation and fluencing the victim, threatened the victim, 4 days later by finding the said restaurant again, and obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by avoiding disturbance for about 15 minutes.

Although the purport of this case was included in the statement of grounds for appeal that there was no intention of retaliation, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the crime of this case is found guilty.

In addition, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was in a state where the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the crime.

In light of the specific contents and circumstances of the crime, the nature of the defendant is serious.

The degree of damage suffered by the victim is not easy, and no agreement has been reached with the victim.

It is necessary to strictly cope with retaliation crimes in that they interfere with the proper exercise of judicial power based on the protection of victims, and further undermine the people's trust in the judiciary.

The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol so far, was subject to criminal punishment several times for committing a crime that commits verbal abuse, embling, or embling violence, etc. against an unspecified person without any justifiable reason, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence for six months on August 2013 due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Violence), and committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence period.

According to this, it is judged that the level of responsibility of the defendant's act and the risk of recidivism are high.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, all of the sentencing conditions in this case and the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court.