(F) The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution and one year of probation) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The crime of this case is not suitable in light of the fact that the victim reported the fact that the victim was threatened by the defendant to the police with the noise problem of the victim and the pet dog that the victim was threatened by the defendant, that the victim was threatened by the defendant in front of the house entrance of the victim, and that the motive or method of the crime is not good, and that the victim caused considerable fear and fear due to the crime of this case, and it is not good that the crime of this case has been committed.

In particular, there is a need for strict punishment because the crime of intimidation for the purpose of retaliation against the reporting of the damage related to his criminal case not only infringes on the victim's personal legal interests, but also may interfere with the functions of the state such as investigation and trial.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without making any effort to agree with the victim or recover damage, seems to have discovered the house of the victim even after the instant crime was committed.

(Evidence Records 75,76 pages) Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, when the defendant was in a trial, the defendant recognized the crime of this case, including the purpose of retaliation, and appeared against him.

The Defendant suffered from friendly depression, a detailed unknown habit and impulse disorder, a harmful use of alcohol, and a non-defluence, etc., and attempted suicide several times while drinking habitually. Such mental disease seems to have an impact on the instant crime.

The defendant transferred his residence after the crime of this case, and hospitalized in the hospital or via the hospital.