Since the defendant filed an appeal on the ground of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles only for the guilty portion, the dismissal of the above dismissal part is separated and finalized, and the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the portion which was pronounced guilty in the original judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no fact that the Defendant has threatened the victim as stated in the facts charged.

B. Even if the Defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant and the victim merely have a conversation that can be seen as having a friendly relationship with the ex post facto distribution, and thus, does not violate social rules.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below as to the mistake of facts, and each of the circumstances inferred therefrom, the fact that the defendant threatened the victim as stated in the facts charged can be acknowledged.

1) The victim consistently stated in the investigative agency and the court of the court below that “each time and time of the statement in the facts of prosecution, the defendant made a statement that “the defendant made a release of provisional seizure to himself/herself, and made a threat to talk about I’s relationship with I.” The victim made a statement that “The defendant made a threat to talk about I’s house.” The victim’s investigation report (in relation to the analysis of the content of A’s currency, according to the investigation record No. 228 pages, the defendant made a call to the victim nine times from March 7, 2013 to March 26, 2013, each time of the crime in this case, the victim called the victim nine times at the time of the crime in this case, and ② the statements from I and J’s court are the same as the victim’s statement instead