A. Although the Defendant was not guilty of deceiving or threatening a victim on the date and time stated in the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant alleged the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail by stating in the column of “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.” In light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant was aged 68 years old as to the wrongful argument of sentencing is favorable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the crime of this case is a case in which the defendant injured the victim in the past and threatened him/her with the date of criminal punishment. The defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of the past history of criminal punishment even though he/she had already been sentenced several times, and the fact that the defendant did not receive a letter from the victim or agreed with the victim is disadvantageous to the defendant.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing, including the background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, and environment, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unlimited and it is not deemed unfair. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument of sentencing is without merit.

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