A. In relation to interference with mistake of facts, although the Defendant had a great sound in the release on bail operated by the victim E, there is no fact that the Defendant had a strong room.

The judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty based on the statement of the victim with no credibility is erroneous.

B. Considering that there is no possibility of realizing harm and injury notified by the defendant, and that the defendant is in a state of mental disorder, the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the victim's statement is sufficiently reliable as it conforms to H's statement at the time of release on bail. Thus, the defendant's sound as stated in the judgment of the court below can sufficiently be recognized as impeding the business of the release on bail operated by the victim. Thus, the defendant's allegation of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. In light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant that the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, considering the fact that the Defendant appears to have suffered considerable mental harm due to the message of the intimidation letter sent repeatedly by the Defendant, and the Defendant, even before and after the commission of the offense of insult against the same victim, considered the Defendant’s age, character, conduct and environment, degree of participation, motive, means and consequence of the offense, and the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

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

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is groundless, and Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.