The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The words and phrases sent by the defendant to the victim E, F, and H are merely those of the defendant's dissatisfactions about the situation that the defendant retired in the D convalescent hospital, and there was no intention to threaten the above victims.

In addition, the defendant will die the victim H.

“No fact exists to the contrary.”

Nevertheless, the court below found all of the crimes of intimidation guilty, which erred by misunderstanding the fact and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to a special crime of assault and thereby resulting in death to the victim F.

“No fact exists to the contrary.”

In addition, the defendant did not know that he tried to take the victim F due to a kysium, and the defendant did not want to attack the victim by a pen, but only franchising one another in the situation where the original pen is used.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of a special crime of assault, which is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to whether to carry dangerous articles.

(c)

The defendant who misleads the victim F of the fact that he/she interfered with the business of the victim F is dead.

The head of a household shall be discarded.

“The breadth of hospital” and “the breadth of hospital.”

’, ‘ 총으로 쏴 죽인다.

There is no fact that he made a statement, etc.

Nevertheless, the court below found the victim F guilty of interference with the business of the victim F, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(d)

The Defendant did not have the purpose of destroying containers for the purpose of interfering with the business of the victim G and the crime of causing fire to general buildings, and through this, there was no intention to interfere with the business of the victim G, and there was no preliminary fact of fire prevention.

Nevertheless, the court below found the victim G guilty of the crime of interference with the business of the victim G and the crime of prevention of general buildings. This is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(e)with respect to each assault and victimO;