A. Fact-finding 1) There is no misunderstanding of facts that the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire for the same contents as the entries in the facts charged in this case. Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of each part of the facts charged. 2) Even if each intimidation was used in the process of dispute with the victim, it is merely an expression of emotional humiliation or temporary decentralization, and it is difficult to view that it did not lead to the notice of harm and injury to the victim, and there was no intention of threatening the victim at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts is 1) Each insult of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, namely, ① witness G, H on the insult of October 22, 2014, and H stated that the Defendant made the victim not to put in the victim’s entrance (Evidence Records No. 20-23, No. 268, 271 of the record), and ② witness F on November 28, 2014, the victim stated that “The victim was able to put in the victim’s desire (Evidence Records No. 20-23, No. 268, 271 of the record),” and that “The victim was able to be punished,” and that “The victim was able to bring in the victim’s desire (Evidence No. 24, 254, 270 of the record, and 25 of the record of the facts charged).”

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is accepted.