A. The defendant has not committed the crime of this case.

B. The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that there was a dispute between the defendant and the victim on the ground that the customer in the first floor restaurant leased by the victim was frightened on the part of the defendant's frightened rice, etc., and that on the day of the crime of this case, the defendant discovered the victim on the day of the crime of this case, was frightening the victim's frighten, the victim was over the floor, the victim was frightened against the defendant, and the victim was frightened on the part of the defendant, and the victim was frightend on the part of the defendant's body, and the victim was frightend and frighted

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor in the part of unfair sentencing, even though he could have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant, the victim wants the punishment of the defendant, the defendant denies and does not oppose the body of the crime, and other various sentencing factors, the defendant's above assertion is not unduly unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.