The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

항소 이유의 요지 사실 오인 (2016 고합 151 사건 부분) 피고인이 이 사건 당시 아이스크림을 사 먹기 위해 E 슈퍼에 찾아간 것은 사실이나, 피해자 C의 핀잔에 화가 나 때리려는 시늉만 했을 뿐 보복의 목적으로 피해자 C의 얼굴에 아이스크림 통을 집어던지거나 피해자 F의 가슴을 폭행한 사실이 없고, 슈퍼 손님들에게 욕설을 하며 행패를 부리는 등 피해자 C의 슈퍼 영업업무를 방해한 사실도 없다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found this part of the facts charged guilty based on the statements of the victims with no credibility is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment.

The sentencing (one year of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court (2016 High 151 case), the lower court’s determination that all charges of this part of the charges were guilty is justifiable, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(1) A victim C shall request an investigative agency and a court of first instance to leave only the defendant who has not paid a monthly tax for a long time.

The defective defendant was able to take a bath and make intimidation and reported to the police, and the following day, the defendant will die on the ground that the defendant found and reported to the police.

Intimidating and drinking ice cream was taken on the face.

At the time, the defendant's business was obstructed, such as thrown away customers, and F, her husband, was assaulted by the defendant.

“A consistent statement is made to the effect that it is consistent, and the victim F also arrives at the site after receiving contact with the Defendant that the Defendant was faced, and “the Defendant was distorted” at the investigative agency and the trial court of the party.

“Is the person to ask for an injury.”