The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 20,000 won for each of the crimes in 2017 and 82,146,224.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the case of 2017 and 82, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the Defendant, while considering the observance of the victim D in front of the main gate by making a stick to the Ampha in which the Defendant was sick, and did not threaten the above victim.

2) In relation to the case of 2017 and 146, the Defendant did not have any horses or actions, at the victim E’s house and fence, to throw a large volume of stone toward the victim E’s house and fence.

3) In relation to the case of 2017 and 224, the Defendant, at the expense of the victim E, did not intimidating the victim E, and there was no threat to the victim E, such as “I son, son, son, son, son, son, son, son, knife, knife, fla, fla, and fladg, with a knife.

4) In relation to the case of 2017 and 320 cases, the Defendant did not say that he had his sexual organ and expressed that he was “I would have died without law, I would have been how I would have to do so, and how I would have to do so, and how I would have to end.”

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (2017 High Court Decision 82,146,224: 1.3 million won, 2017 High Court Decision 320, 2017 High Court Decision: 1.00 million won, 2017 High Court Decision) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are found based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below of this case 1) 2017, 82, 2017, and 82. In other words, ① the defendant has a brue inspection in a way that he installed CCTV on the victim D at the time and place specified in this part of the facts charged, and the above victim was found to be a victim. ② The defendant was found not to have a good appraisal due to the above CCTV installation between the defendant and the above victim, ② the defendant had a brue inspection while fighting, ③ the defendant was under investigation by threatening the above victim, ③ the defendant was under investigation by threatening the above victim, ④ the length of the brue inspection is higher than the length, and the defendant can also be a deadly weapon when brutd in the police investigation.

It is recognized that the statement was made.

The above fact of recognition.