A. The Defendant did not assault the victim with regard to the facts constituting the crime of the 2015 Highest 866 case as stated in the lower judgment by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

In addition, with regard to the crime Nos. 3 and 4 of the 2015 High Order No. 961 of the decision of the court below, the defendant filed a report with the same photograph as the victim's daily driving is driving under the influence of alcohol, and did not misrepresent himself as a public official, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged, even though he did not assault the victim, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the court below's judgment that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is sufficiently acceptable, and there is no ground for misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles against this part of the defendant's assertion.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is relatively small in terms of the following: (a) the Defendant’s perception and reflects his criminal act with respect to a part of the crime; (b) the degree of assault, intimidation, and interference with the business of the Defendant is not limited; and (c) the value of

However, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes over several times during the period of repeated crimes upon having been sentenced to a punishment of one year of imprisonment with prison labor and a fine of 200,000 won due to the crime of injury, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence and committed each of the instant crimes. The instant special intimidation is considerable to the risk of committing the instant crime with dangerous objects, such as knife, carried by the Defendant, and thus, attempted to keep the Defendant consistent with the defense that the Defendant could not be able to obtain for the partial crime of this case