The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. The Defendant did not comply with the eviction.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and investigated. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was punished by a conflict with the victim’s office and an article, and the Defendant was punished by a conflict between the victim and the police officer again entering the office after receiving a report from the victim, and the police officer was dispatched to the office again, and the so-called the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and there was no violation of law by mistake of facts, as alleged by the Defendant.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Although there are circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant denies the crime up to the trial of the party, that the victim was dead or did not take measures to recover damage, that there was a record of the suspension of indictment due to the same victim's obstruction of business, the defendant was sentenced to suspension of indictment. Meanwhile, the defendant is punished between the victim and his/her own scambling, and his/her scambling with the victim, which seems to lead to the crime of this case. In addition to the punishment of a fine once for the crime of this case, other favorable circumstances that are favorable to the defendant, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., are considered, and the punishment of the court below is too unreasonable.