The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine is an unreasonable sentencing case where the sentence of the lower judgment is too heavy or too minor in light of the content of the specific case.

Where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the original judgment, and the sentencing of the original court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the original judgment.

On the other hand, in a case where it is deemed that the sentencing judgment of the court below exceeded the reasonable limit of its discretion when comprehensively considering the factors and sentencing criteria that are the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the court below’s sentencing process, or where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing judgment of the court below in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing process, the appellate court shall reverse the unfair judgment of the court below.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

We examine whether the sentence of the lower judgment, which returned to the instant case, is too unreasonable in light of the substance of the specific case.

The crime of this case is a part of the process of constant harassment that requires the defendant to liquidate internal relations, and it is not very good that the defendant made intimidation to the victim who accused himself/herself, and made intimidation to inform her husband of internal relations and to make a divorce.

In addition, even before the instant crime was committed, the Defendant committed the instant crime without any scam, even though he had been punished several times by a fine due to interference with business by obstructing the operation of the restaurant operated by the victim, and having been punished several times by a fine due to interference with business by causing an injury.

In the course of the crime of this case, the defendant entered the victim's residential parking lot, and identified the telephone number of the victim's husband's wife.