2. Determination is that the Defendant did not have been sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment within the past 20 years, that is, the victim C did not have any injury due to the instant crime, and that the Defendant’s opposite nature is an element of sentencing favorable to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant was convicted of having been sentenced to a fine several times due to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act and the crime of injury, and the Defendant committed the instant crime on October 27, 2012, and divorced from the victim on or around March 2013 after receiving ad hoc measure order that prohibits access to the residence of the victim. However, the Defendant was exempted from punishment with the victim's tolerance and was living together in the victim's residence. On May 11, 2013, the Defendant was subject to ad hoc measure order such as prohibition of access by assaulting the victim and assaulting the victim, and continued living in the victim's residence. However, even at this time, the Defendant continued to be living in the victim's residence. The Defendant committed the instant crime again against the victim, such as threatening the victim by threatening him and threatening him with the victim, and the Defendant was unable to agree with the victim, etc., the lower court's sentencing is determined to have a reasonable scope in full view of various sentencing conditions as indicated in the pleadings of the instant case.

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