The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is that the defendant found the boiler of the apartment leased from the injured party (hereinafter “the boiler of this case”) due to the replacement of the boiler of the apartment leased from the injured party (hereinafter “the boiler of this case”), and said that the victim was a defect in talking with the injured party during the process of dividing the victim into the victim’s office, and that there was no abuse of power on the match office, and there was no use of power on the part of the injured party, and that the victim explicitly

there is no evidence sufficient to determine the person.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court and the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant: (a) at around January 25, 2019 to request the replacement of the boiler of this case to the victim’s office in order to directly meet the victim and to demand the replacement of the boiler of this case, on the part of which the Defendant was punished by the telephone or text message with the victim; and (b) at the investigative agency and the lower court, the victim requested the Defendant to find the boiler in his office and replace the boiler of this case; and (c) requested the Defendant to change the boiler of this case several times.

However, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant did not respond to it,” ③ on January 25, 2019, the victim reported to the effect that men were free from disturbance on November 25, 2019, and on January 25, 2019, the police officer called up on January 25, 2019 to move the Defendant from the office of the victimized party, ④ was in the office at the time of the instant case.

H stated in the court of first instance that “the defendant was seated in a sofa, and the victim was her talked with the office, but there was a dispute by stating that the defendant would talk in the office without going to do so,” and ⑤.