The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged (as to the case 2015 order 1093 case), had improved the victim E with the victim’s horse dispute, and had the victim suffered loss, but there was no threat while taking the victim’s bath.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months and the suspension of the execution of two years, and the fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, each of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, including each police statement protocol about F who observed the instant site at the time and at the time, was admitted to this part of the facts charged at investigation agencies and the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor at the first trial date at the first trial of the first instance and its admissibility is recognized.

In full view of B, the Defendant, at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged, was in dispute with other employees. However, the Defendant’s boomed the victim E to the effect that “the victim’s boomed the improvement of boom and discarded the victim’s death,” and sufficiently recognized the facts of intimidation.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges that the defendant carried a dangerous object such as improvement and threatened the victim, is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law as argued by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the unfair argument of sentencing, where there exists a unique area of the first instance trial as to the determination of sentencing, and there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance trial, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The Defendant committed a crime of the Stowging Control Act in 1986 prior to each of the instant crimes.