The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although the Defendant did not intimidation or assault the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the reporting of the crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the purpose of retaliation or mistake of facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted to the same effect as the allegations in the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the grounds that it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant threatened the victim with the purpose of retaliation against the provision of the investigation warrant, such as reporting, etc. in relation to the investigation of his criminal case, and convicted him of this part of the facts charged.

① On January 3, 2020, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender around 17:25 on the same day by the police who was reported by C as a crime of interference with business (crime No. 1-A) around 16:00 and was arrested as a flagrant offender at around 17:25 on the same day, and was released after the investigation was completed around 20:15 on the same day.

On the other hand, the Defendant reported to himself/herself as a flagrant offender and arrested him/her as a flagrant offender on December 15, 2019 (crime No. 2), and at this time C reported to the Defendant.

② On January 3, 2020, the Defendant was arrested on the same day, and said, “Dambin” was called “C.”

(3) The term "victim" means a victim and C.

(hereinafter the same shall apply)

Based on each of the statements made by the Defendant, the Defendant is a large voice to the victims of fakes, etc. on January 3, 2020, immediately following the date they were released as described in Section 1, 20:15.