A. In light of the following reasons, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged of this case or by misapprehending the purpose of violence, intimidation and retaliation, and insult, etc.

(1) Paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below stated that the Defendant only carried the victim who was satisfing his house and found his house, and did not assault the victim, such as batfing bat, etc.

(2) On June 16, 2013, the Defendant, as indicated in the holding of the lower judgment, did not see the defense at the victim’s house entrance. Since the Defendant merely saw the car book in the form form at the time of each of the instant crimes, it does not constitute intimidation, and there was no purpose of retaliation.

(3) Paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court below, the defendant, upon receiving a report from the police officer, resisting his explanation only to the defendant, and did not insult him.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(1) Article 1(1) of the decision of the court below is consistently stated by the police and the prosecution that “the victim dump dump dump from the defendant” and its contents are also specific, and thus, the credibility of the statement is recognized. As such, the fact that the defendant dump dumpedds the victim

(2) In light of the fact that around 09:00 on June 16, 2013, the part of Paragraph (2) of the judgment of the court below stated that there was a defense in front of the victim’s house entrance, and that the police officer called “the victim’s house entrance” after receiving the report was “the victim’s house entrance” from the Defendant, the Defendant.