A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the Defendant did not intimidation the victim. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, i.e., (i) the victim’s act from the investigative agency to the court below to the court below, (ii) the victim’s response at the time, and (iii) the victim’s statement was false.

(3) In light of the fact that the Defendant also supported the content of the text message sent earlier on July 8, 2016, which was the time when the Defendant committed the instant intimidation, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that he threatened the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below.

The decision was determined.

2) Examining the records of the above deliberation in light of the records, we affirm and accept the above fact finding and judgment of the court below, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below.

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

B. It is recognized that the defendant generally repents his or her mistake with respect to the determination of the unfair argument of sentencing.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the crime of this case is not good, that the defendant did not agree with the victim until the trial of the party, and that the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, it is not recognized that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is not reasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.