The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The content of the instant crime was exaggerated and misunderstanding of legal principles, and the Defendant’s act did not reach a threat of interference with business, but did not cause fears constituting the crime of intimidation, and there was no intention of intimidation against the Defendant.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime contingently, and that the Defendant was receiving treatment for alcohol addiction and not re-offending, etc., the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case in the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail with the defendant's assertion and its decision under the summary of evidence of the judgment. In light of the above judgment of the court below compared with records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle on the assertion of unfair sentencing, ought to respect the determination of sentencing in a case where there exists a unique area of the first instance court as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance court’s

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). Even if the materials submitted in the trial at the trial, there is no significant change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment, and comprehensively taking account of all the factors indicated in the records of this case, the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Conclusion.