The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, 80 hours of community service, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of unfair sentencing refers to the case where the sentence of the judgment of the court below is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the conditions of the sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act based on the statutory penalty, and there is a unique area of the first instance court in our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle.

In addition to these circumstances and the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, if there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). It is recognized that the instant crime was committed in violation of the building where a political office is located by creating model bomb for the purpose of threatening the victims who are political parties, and that the Defendant both led to the confession of the crime and reflects the wrongness; the crime of intimidation was discovered during the commission of the crime

However, considering the fact that the victim of the crime of intimidation was officially recognized, the issue of the crime of this case, which the defendant attempted to threaten the victim using the model bomb in the building where the access of the general public was frequent, is not easy, and even if the model bomb created by the defendant was of little and no practical danger, the crime of the defendant is more serious in light of the fact that the police officers, including the police speciality, were called out and evacuated by the general public, resulting in the result of the crime.