2. The Defendant recognized the crime of retaliation intimidation in this case and reflected his mistake.

The degree of intimidation inflicted on the victim by the defendant seems not to be significant.

The defendant is exempted from committing the crime of drinking alcohol and contingently.

However, the crime of this case is not highly likely to be committed by threatening the victim as if the defendant had been punished for larceny due to the victim's report.

The Defendant committed multiple violent crimes. In particular, on May 3, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for ten months for special injury, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years for suspended execution, and was committed the instant crime without being aware of it during the suspended execution period.

Even after the crime of this case was committed, the Defendant seems to have bullying by finding the victim.

The Defendant was unable to obtain an agreement from the victim, and did not reach an agreement.

In addition, considering the fact that there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and that it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the circumstances after the crime, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is deemed within the appropriate range of punishment corresponding to the responsibility, and it is not determined that the punishment is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.