A. Fact misunderstanding [part of the crime of intimidation, etc. against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes as indicated in the holding of the court below] The defendant does not intimidation the victim C for retaliation as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment below (hereinafter “each intimidation of this case”).

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the prosecutor bears the burden of proof as to the facts constituting the elements of the crime prosecuted in a criminal trial, and thus, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that there was an objective of retaliation against the offender of a crime violating Article 5-9 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. Such proof shall be based on strict proof that the judge bears no reasonable doubt. However, as long as there is no confession of the defendant, whether there was the purpose of retaliation against the defendant should be determined by the defendant, such as personal relation with the victim, provision of proviso to investigation, etc. (hereinafter “providing proviso to investigation”), the defendant’s response to and degree of disadvantage suffered by the defendant due to changes in the investigation or trial process, provision of proviso to investigation, etc., the details and degree of disadvantage suffered by the defendant, surrounding environment including the time and place of the crime, etc., the method and method of the crime including the use of deadly weapons, the contents and mode of the crime before and after the judgment of the court below, as well as the objective character and behavior of the defendant 20.