All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant has stolen gold and gold tamps equivalent to a total of 265gs contained in the victim’s bank, and thereby acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant sent text messages listed in the attached list (2) to the victim, thereby threatening the victim, thereby making it possible for the Defendant to sufficiently recognize the fact that he threatened the victim,

B. The Defendant asserts that, as the lower court’s punishment (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable, the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence legitimately adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the records in light of the determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the evidence of this case based on the judgment of the court below is sufficient to recognize the facts that the defendant stolen the gold and gold brushes in a total of 265gs in the victim's bank, and the fact that the defendant notified the specific harm sufficient to the extent that the defendant caused fears to the victim is insufficient, and the court below found the defendant not guilty of the larceny among the facts charged of this case and found the defendant not guilty of the crime of intimidation as to the crime of this case is just, and the court below did not submit any new evidence corresponding to each of the facts charged in this part in the trial, and therefore there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor

B. Comprehensively taking account of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the instant argument and records on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence includes various grounds for sentencing asserted by the Defendant and the prosecutor.