All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the part concerning the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the judgment of the court below was written by the defendant 1 at the time and place as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, this is merely a wind that makes it impossible to control appraisal due to mental symptoms, which are soldiers, after requesting an interview to the victim and being rejected by the defendant, due to the escape from the conference held in the judgment of the court below, and it does not constitute intimidation for the purpose of retaliation against the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime in the judgment of the court below. However, the court below held that the defendant threatened the victim for the purpose of retaliation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Despite the fact that the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical loss due to the Defendant’s mental illness at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding mental or physical disorder or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting

3) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and on this basis, based on the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed intimidation as stated in the facts constituting a crime of crime in the lower judgment for the purpose of retaliationing the Defendant’s being investigated as a suspicion of special injury, etc. to the victim. In so doing, the lower court’s determination in comparison with the records and the arguments of the lower court and the lower court.