The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged, in the case of the 2020 Highest 1293 case, the Defendant did not have the intention to refuse the return of the strong language and only did not return the victim’s contact information to the wind that changes.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts, such as the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, since the defendant refused a request from the victim several times to return his/her speech as stated in this part of the facts charged, even though it was requested by the defendant several times.

2) Therefore, the assertion of misunderstanding facts is without merit.

B. According to the records, the court below set a sentence in consideration of various sentencing grounds, such as the following: (a) the nature of the crime is inferior in light of the course and method of the crime; (b) the frequency of the crime is large; (c) the amount of damage is not fully recovered; (d) the crime of this case was committed again during the period of repeated crime; (e) the mistake is divided and contradictory; (c) some victims do not want the punishment of the defendant; and (d) the case and equity should be considered at the same time with the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, etc. for which the judgment of the court below became final

2) There is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment because new sentencing data has not been submitted in the trial at the original court, and considering the various reasons revealed in the oral proceedings, the lower court’s sentencing is too unlimited and discretionary.