A. Although the Defendant, as stated in the instant facts charged, did not make excessive and threatened the victim, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (for 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 120 hours of community service, 120 hours of gift) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant appears to have set excessive amount as stated in the facts charged in the instant case and threatened the victim.

The lower court’s decision that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is justifiable, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court should respect the sentencing of the first instance court.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment. In full view of the following factors, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s age and happiness environment; (b) relationship with the victim; (c) details and details of the crime; and (d) circumstances after the crime.

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the conclusion is groundless.