Defendant

Although the defendant did not intimidation the victim, and only received the payment of the existing debt according to the victim's free will, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The above sentence of the court below by the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court found the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the Defendant attached to the head of a house where the victim resides together with his parent, and (b) the Defendant sent a cell phone text message containing abusive and threatening the victim at least ten times a day at the time of the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant and the victim sent out a cell phone text message containing abusive and threatening the victim at least ten times a day at the time of the instant crime; and (d) the Defendant and the victim’s notarized in accordance with Article 7 of the instant agreement, “the Defendant shall not include the contents of the victim’s communication media, such as the Internet,” and the Defendant, either directly or through his her own Internet panty (R), opened a new line on the left side of the Internet panty page, “M spouse’s spawd” and opened the victim’s private life to the public by linking the victim’s personal pictures, etc. to the Defendant.

In light of the fact that M's spouse's character C is sent with mobile phone text messages, etc., the above content is stipulated in paragraph (7) of the instant agreement.