A. Defendant 1’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine on July 19, 2015, and around 12:00 on July 20, 2015, the Defendant met the police officer G on July 20, 2015, and met H around 22:00 on July 19, 2015. However, at the time, the Defendant did not threaten it, and there was no purpose of retaliation against H.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. Each statement in G, H’s investigative agency and court of the court below at the lower court’s misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles are specific and consistent with the contents of the statement, mutual interchanges between them, as well as V’s statement in the court of the court below, etc., which is consistent with this. According to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he intimidation a police officer for the purpose of intimidation and retaliation on two occasions as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the facts constituting the lower court’s crime, and thus, the lower court’s judgment on this point is just and acceptable.

B. The degree of damage caused by each of the defendant's wrongful arguments in sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor is relatively minor, the victim H expressed his intention not to punish the defendant in the original trial, and expressed his intent that the defendant does not want the defendant's punishment in the trial of the victim K's employees, and the defendant's health status is not good, and the defendant's favorable sentencing factors, such as the defendant's unfavorable sentencing factors, as well as the defendant's unfavorable sentencing factors indicated in the column of "reasons for sentencing" of the records and changes of the original judgment, are examined on the basis of the sentencing conditions in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as well as the sentencing guidelines in the Supreme Court's sentencing committee, and the sentencing guidelines in the sentencing committee are too heavy.