2. The crime of intimidation in this case was committed by the Defendant by sending a message that repeatedly notifies the victim of harm and injury, and the nature of the crime is not good in light of the background and content of the crime, and the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim up to the trial, and did not recover the damage to the damaged property, and the Defendant had the record of receiving a fine three times due to the same victim’s property damage and defamation is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment because a new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial court, and the prosecutor’s assertion on the grounds of unfair sentencing seems to have already been reflected in the grounds of sentencing in the original judgment, and taking account of the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument in this case, the sentence of the lower court is not less complicated

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor'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.