A. The court below found the defendant guilty of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, even though the conversation between the victim and the victim was divided by telephone around May 16, 2020 on May 16, 2020, did not constitute intimidation.

In the initial statement of grounds for appeal, the Defendant argued for misunderstanding of facts about the “Attempted Destruction and Damage to Property,” but explicitly withdrawn it on the first day of trial.

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

2. Determination

A. Intimidation on a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles means a threat of harm and injury, thereby causing fear to the other party.

According to the evidence records of Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office 2020 type 24048 type 21 to 23, the defendant was under investigation on May 1, 2020 by inflicting an injury on the victim E (the male and the age of 47) inside the Daejeon Seodong C apartment Ddong elevator, and the victim was under investigation at around 21:38 of the same month, the defendant changed his attitude that "at around 21:38 of the same month, the victim had no intention to agree on the criminal case at the cost of the defendant while talking with the victim, and that he did not have any intention to agree on the amount of the defendant's own."

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is not accepted.

B. The lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing seems to be an dynamic crime in the case of an injury.