A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with the intention to fight, the Defendant did not intend to inform and threaten the victims of specific harm and injury.

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

2. Determination

A. The court below's argument of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the victims have been fighting between the defendant's daily operation and the victims' daily operation, and the defendant has taken the camping room at the bit of automobile, and the defendant has expressed his behavior to find the victims' daily operation while putting the camping room and obscing," and the victim's statement about the defendant's act is mutually consistent with the victim's statement. ② although the defendant seems to have not displayed the victims' response or obscing it, considering the situation where the defendant was fighting from the victim's daily operation before the victim's movement and the victim's daily operation, it is difficult to accept the defendant's argument that it was difficult to find the victim's movement and the victim's movement with the intent to fight between the defendant's daily operation and the victim's daily operation.

B. Unreasonable sentencing.