All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The lower court dismissed the prosecution against assault and intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged.

The Defendant appealed against the conviction portion of the judgment below, and the prosecutor stated in the petition of appeal that the scope of the appeal is “wholly”, but only the “unfair sentencing” was stated on the ground of appeal petition or the reason for appeal, and does not entirely state the grounds for appeal as to the dismissal portion of the public prosecution.

Therefore, since the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below became separately final and conclusive, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s mistake of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the attempted attempt to intrude upon the victim’s house on May 24, 2016) did not open the window that the Defendant tried to intrude into the victim’s house C, and it is merely a fact that the Defendant removed the counter in order to ascertain whether the victim was in the house and was not easily seen. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of two years, the suspension of execution of three years, the observation of protection, community service 120 hours, the confiscation) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part. As to this, the lower court, namely, ① found the victim’s house to interview the Defendant due to frequent dispute with the Defendant, and ② around that time, the Defendant did not open the door with the victim because the victim was satisfly and frequently satisfying the victim. ③