A. Although the Defendant had not threatened the victim G with the purpose of retaliation, the lower court convicted the Defendant of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes among the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether there was a purpose of retaliation against the defendant as to the assertion of facts ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various objective circumstances such as the defendant's speech and behavior, character and balance characteristics of the defendant, predictability of the crime, possibility of expectation of the crime before and after the crime, and circumstances before and after the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do9030, Sept. 26, 2014). Health House of the defendant and his attitude in the process of investigation or trial, provision of proviso to investigation, etc., the contents and degree of disadvantage suffered by the defendant due to the defendant, circumstances surrounding the crime, including the time and place of the crime, etc., how the defendant and the victim took place at the time of the crime, how the crime was committed, such as the method of the crime, how the crime was committed, how the victim was committed, and how the crime was committed, and how the defendant was forced to be prosecuted before and after the prosecution of the case.