The defendant of a misunderstanding of facts has a food to the victim and found him/her, and he/she did a horse fighting with a vision, and there is no fact that he/she saws the breath of the victim and clocks with face and booms.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The defendant in the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) tried to find the victim in order to raise the victim's dog in a sound that the victim raises while preparing for meals, and did not threaten by finding the victim for the purpose of retaliation.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

The sentence of imprisonment (one year and two months of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim made a statement that he/she had been assaulted by the Defendant at the police station, and the content of the statement cannot be deemed to have been specific and false, or that the victim’s cell phone image recorded in the situation at the time of living together with the victim also conforms to this, and ② the

In light of the fact that the above mobile phone screen image stated as "I wish to confirm the video, I would like to use it. I would like to assault." and the fact that the defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged in the court below, the decision of the court below on this part is just, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as argued by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.