The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, a fine of five million won shall be imposed, and as to the crime No. 2 of the judgment.

1. On January 18, 201, the gist of the grounds for appeal and the submission period of the defense counsel submitted subsequent to the submission period for the reasons for appeal are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds for appeal.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles (as to the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant was released after being sentenced to a suspended sentence in the previous criminal case and made telephone conversations with the victim and sent text messages.

However, there was no concrete threat of harm and injury, and there was no purpose of retaliation in order to confirm the attitude to talk about the victim's complaint before filing a criminal complaint against the victim, and to decide whether to file a complaint.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled that the defendant threatened the victim for retaliation.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the defendant (the first crime as indicated in the lower judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months, and the second crime as indicated in the lower judgment: fine of 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the summary of the charge of the crime No. 1 [the part on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes] of the judgment of the court below is that the Defendant, around September 2014, when she endedd with the victim D (the victim D, 30 years of age) who was a member of the shooting sport center operated by the Defendant and about about 10 months after she endeded and ended, the Defendant, who was dissatisfied with the hedging, was living in his/her own vehicle, caused the victim to rape by her flusing the victim into the said glusium and flusing the victim’s house, thereby committing rape, and spread the victim’s sexual dynamic image with the Defendant.

The defendant was detained due to intimidation, and the court has claimed innocence in the trial process.