The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

In the text of the judgment of the court below, the term "new violence" shall be corrected to "Continuance threats".

1. The lower court dismissed the public prosecution as to the crime of intimidation on existence among the facts charged in the instant case and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

Since the defendant appealed only for the guilty part, and the prosecutor did not appeal, and the dismissal of prosecution that the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal is separated, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the guilty part of the

2. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) to the point of the reasons for appeal is too unreasonable.

3. The lower court determined the Defendant’s punishment by taking into account the favorable and unfavorable circumstances of the Defendant.

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as the sentencing factor are considered to have been reflected in the sentencing process of the lower court, and there is no special change in circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court.

In addition, in full view of the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime resulting from assault or bodily injury, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, background and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, because of excessive

The defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

4. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is groundless. It is so decided as per

(However, since it is apparent that "a violence" in the disposition of the court below is a clerical error in "abstinence", it shall be corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.