2. The Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in favor of the Defendant, while recognizing the Defendant’s wrong act. However, the instant crime was committed by the Defendant against the victim, who was divorced on March 2, 2014, on the 10 occasions, in total, by finding the victim as a mobile phone and threatening him/her to death. The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million on July 22, 2015 due to the same victim’s intrusion upon residence, etc. on the same victim. On March 23, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 as a crime of the said summary order, and was issued a court’s decision not to contact the victim or his/her workplace and not to contact with the cell phone, and was committed several times again, and the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware that the victim and his/her children appeared to have serious fear and apprehension to the extent that normal daily life is difficult, and the victim and the victim did not receive any agreement or agreement to use the victim.

In full view of the above favorable circumstances and other circumstances, such as the defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the pleadings, even if considering all favorable circumstances for the defendant, it cannot be deemed unfair because the court below’s punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant’s assertion 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.