The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the crime of special intimidation of fact, the Defendant told the victim E, a security guard who was found to have reduced music rates, that “responding down the death of the victim” again. However, the Defendant did not seem to have knife the knife and look at the chest of the said victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's legitimately adopted and examined the assertion of mistake of facts, that is, D made a concrete statement in the court of the court below that "the defendant has taken the kitchen gate toward the victim's chest," and the investigative agency has consistently prepared a written statement, and the victim also stated the same purport in the telephone conversation with the police, etc., which are acknowledged that the defendant took a knife and threatened the victim. Thus, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges is just, and there is no error of mistake in the facts alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the defendant is making a confession of the remaining crimes except for special intimidation, and the victim of special intimidation does not want the punishment of the defendant.

However, the defendant has a number of violent crimes including punishment, and the defendant committed a crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes without being aware of even though he/she is a repeated crime, and a special intimidation in the detention center, and the investigation process and the attitude in the detention center are not good, and the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive, means, and result of the crime are considered comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments.