The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the instant facts charged, misunderstanding of the legal principles or 1) As to the infringement of residence among the instant facts charged, the Defendant found the victim’s house to receive money lent to the victim’s entire wife on the day of the instant case, and such act does not constitute a residential intrusion.

2) As to the crime of intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant’s act of making a statement to the victim, such as the statement in this part of the facts charged, thereby inducing fear.

Since it cannot be seen as intimidation, it does not constitute intimidation.

However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the above facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the unfair defendant in sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. 1) First, we examine the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, such as misunderstanding of facts concerning the intrusion of residence, among the facts charged in the instant case.

According to this part of the facts charged, even if the defendant did, as alleged in the above, returned to the victim's residence to receive the money lent to the entire wife, and the defendant found the victim's residence due to the above circumstances.

Even if the court below duly adopted and examined evidence, taking into account the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the details of the order of provisional disposition prohibiting access to the victim by the defendant (five pages of evidence record), and the method of intrusion by the defendant, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has entered the victim's residence against the victim's will as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. In full view of the background and content leading up to the Defendant’s instant crime, the victim’s statement, etc., it does not seem that the illegality of the Defendant’s above act is excluded as an act that does not contravene social norms.

2) Next, among the facts charged in the instant case.