The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When there is a misunderstanding of facts with E, the Defendant merely told E that “I will live in the natives until I live together in the same place where I live together,” and the victim did not have made the above remarks (hereinafter “the instant remarks”).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts since it recognized that the defendant made the instant speech to the victim and E on the job accompanied by the victim, E, and F.

B. In other words, the Defendant’s statement of grounds of appeal on the grounds of appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing argues that there is an assertion of unfair sentencing in addition to the purport that the sentence of conviction is detained.

Even if the facts charged of this case are found guilty, in light of the fact that the degree of the crime of this case is relatively minor and that the defendant suffers economic difficulties due to hospital expenses, the punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's duly adopted and examined evidence, namely, ① the victim and E residing in a public rental apartment operated by Seoul Metropolitan Government consistently with the victim, E, and F in the presence of the investigative agency and the court below, and ② the defendant himself recognized that he made the instant statement to E, a resident of the above apartment. At the time of the instant case, the defendant had the idea of "the resident of the above apartment," and ③ the head of the apartment management office in an objective position, stated that the defendant had made the instant statement to the victim and E in the presence of the investigative agency and the court below.