The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant: (a) did not know about the charge that the Defendant forced the employees of the main office operated by the Victim F to commit an indecent act; (b) did not know about the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for committing an indecent act against the employees of the main office operated by the Victim F; and (c) did not look back at the main office operated by the Victim F and the victim G, which was the victim F, and thereby interfered with

Retaliatory crimes should be strictly punished in that they may cause interference with the discovery of substantial truth of investigation agencies and judicial agencies and the exercise of the state's penal authority by urging victims to exercise legitimate investigative authority as well as the victim's personal legal interests and by hindering cooperation in investigation and trial.

In addition, the defendant, even though he had a record of being punished three times or more due to drinking, has also been engaged in drinking.

In full view of the above circumstances and other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, health status, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, it does not seem that the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable, even if considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant was committed in full and against all, and the victim F and G agreed that the victims were not able to punish the Defendant.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless.