The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to prevent the victim C from falling under any of the foregoing, the Defendant: (a) misunderstanding of facts (special intimidation and coercion) did not have threatened C with C to have excessively deducted from the victim; (b) did not threaten C to die and throw away excess; and (c) upon C’s request to remove the locking device from the cellular phone, C only responded to this net order; and (d) there was no intimidation to remove the locking device from the cellular phone.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the sentence of unfair sentencing (from Nos. 1 to 4 and 9: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, from 5 to 8, 10, and 11: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court consistently stated the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: ① With respect to the Defendant’s residential intrusion, property damage, special injury, special intimidation, and coercion from the investigative agency to the lower court, the victim C, as of October 16, 2015, the circumstances, means, and result, the degree of exercise of the Defendant’s speech and behavior and force at the time, response by the victim C, the circumstances after the commission of the crime (such as sending text messages to the Defendant, and the details reported to the police by the said victim), etc., the victim’s statement is specific and specific, and the circumstances after the victim’s statement was supported by objective data (the text message details, the 112 Report Report). ② In light of the fact that it is difficult for the victim C to find that the Defendant s or s/he made a false accusation by deceiving the Defendant or making a false accusation by the agreement, the victim and the victim’s excessive accusation will be discarded as in this part of the charges.