A. Defendant 1 did not commit any of the above crimes. Defendant 1 did not have any of the following offenses: (a) misunderstanding of facts (an attempted crime, assault, act of violence, July 24, 2016; and (b) interference, intimidation, fraud, obstruction of performance of official duties; and (c) self-injury on October 7, 2016).

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victims of each of the above crimes and witnesses of some of the crimes have consistently stated the facts of damage from the investigative agency to the court below. In the case of each of the crimes described in 3 and 9 of the original facts of the court below, video materials showing the Defendant’s criminal intent, assault, business obstruction on July 24, 2016, and self-injury on October 7, 2016, which were committed by the court below. In the case of partial crimes, there were video materials showing the Defendant’s criminal intent, and in the case of the crimes described in 3 and 9 of the original facts of the court below, the Defendant recognized the facts of the crime at the prosecutor’s investigation stage.

In full view of these facts, the defendant can be found to have committed each of the crimes listed in 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the judgment below. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the act of intimidation, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

① At the time of prosecution, the Defendant made a statement that specifically and clearly recognizes the victim’s intention of intimidation, such as the statement on the facts constituting the offense in the original judgment.

② At the time of investigation agency and court, S made a statement to the effect that, although at the time, the Defendant was unable to properly listen to the Defendant’s statements, the Defendant was satisfing by entering the victim’s room and satisfing the victim, and that the victim was faced out of the room.

③ The Defendant denies the crime of intimidation at the lower court and the lower court.