A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

A. 1) The Defendant did not have any fact on the date and time of committing each crime, between the convenience store, which is the place where the crime was committed.

2) Although the Defendant has threatened a victim of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (defluence, etc.), the Defendant did not conclude that “if a report is made only once, he/she would comply with the terms of the said report,” and did not intend to take retaliation against the victim.

3) The Defendant had the intent and ability to pay the mobile phone repair cost, and there was no intention to commit fraud.

4) On July 29, 2017, the Defendant’s interference with one’s own business was merely an objection to the cost of repairing mobile phones, but did not interfere with the victim’s business by exercising force.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts

A. B. (b) did not accept the above assertion on the grounds of the circumstances stated in this paragraph.

Examining the circumstances presented by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court’s decision that found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged on the basis of the victim’s statement, etc. is acceptable, and there is no error of law as alleged by the Defendant

2) The Defendant also asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal under this part of the lower judgment, and the lower court rejected the said assertion on the grounds as stated in 2-h (i.e., “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel” under the title of “determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel.”

In light of the following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, this part of the judgment below was examined.