A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts as to intimidation and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant merely made an emotional humiliation, and even though it is difficult to see that the content was sufficient to cause fear to the victim, the lower court convicted the victim of the intimidation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two million won by fine) is unreasonable.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and in full view of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing was imprisoned and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

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