A. The Defendant did not intimidation the victim for the purpose of retaliationing the reporting act of the victim, such as the mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes).

In addition, when the defendant entered the victim's residence, the defendant's act constitutes an impossible attempt to commit the crime because the victim had already opened the door and opened the door.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, whether there was a purpose of retaliation against the Defendant or not) In the criminal trial procedure conducted in the form of a participatory trial introduced to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judiciary, collective opinion presented to the full bench on the acknowledgement of facts by a juror composed of citizens cultivated through strict selection procedures has a recommended effect to assist the judgment of the fact-finding judge who has the right to the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts under the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trials.

If a jury participated in the whole process of the examination of facts, such as examination of witness, and the verdict of innocence issued by unanimous opinion on the admission of evidence, such as the credibility of a witness’s statement, is adopted as it is in conformity with the trial evidence of the full bench, the first instance court’s determination on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted through such procedures shall be respected to the extent that it does not appear to be sufficiently and clearly opposed to the jury through a new examination of evidence in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of substantial direct examination and the principle of court-oriented trials.