The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The criminal defendant with mental or physical disorder had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of committing the instant crime interfering with business.

The punishment of the court below (the imprisonment of six months, the fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted mental and physical disorder only at the trial. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, but in full view of all the circumstances, including the background of the instant crime, the content and mode of the crime, the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, and the attitude of the Defendant, etc., the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

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

B. It is reasonable to respect the crime of this case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s determination on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The crime of this case is the case where the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim at the main point operated by the victim and, i.e., refer to the above act to the trial, coerciond the victim while

The court below committed the instant intimidation during the period of probation, since the defendant was sentenced to two years of probation for 10 months of imprisonment due to the crime of interference with business affairs, etc., and the defendant was punished by a majority of the crimes of the same kind of crime, and the defendant was requested for a decision-making trial over 11 times due to the act of interference with business affairs and the act of non-driving, etc., and was notified 13 times of the disposition.