The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have the purpose of retaliation at the time of committing the instant crime, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles by recognizing the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles under Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides a criminal investigation team, such as a complaint or accusation, for the purpose of retaliation against the investigation of or judgment on a criminal case or another person, or for the provision of a criminal investigation team, such as a complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials, or for the purpose of prohibiting submission of a false statement or accusation, or cancelling a false statement or accusation, the crime of assault or intimidation, etc. under the Criminal Act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of not less than one year, which is heavier than the statutory penalty under the Criminal Act. Here, whether such purpose was committed by an actor ought to be reasonably determined in light of social norms by being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 20 years, including the offender’s age, occupation, motive and method of the crime, personal relationship with the victim, and circumstances before and after the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do12055, Jun. 14, 20192).