The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant has been unloading the piracy on the floor, but there is no fact that the Defendant made the victim’s speech that “I would die” at the time of unloading the piracy, or made the victim a piracy or each item toward the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (five months of imprisonment, one year of suspended sentence, one year of probation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The victim of a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles argues that the victim made a consistent and specific statement about the fact that he/she would die of the victim from an investigative agency to the court of original trial, thereby consistently and specifically stating the fact that he/she would die of the victim. Thus, the victim's statement

Comprehensively taking account of all other evidence such as the statement of the victim and the statement of the defendant at the time of the crime of this case at the time of the defendant's investigation agency (as stated in this part of the facts charged, the defendant carried piracy, which is a dangerous object, and threatened the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

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

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Circumstances in which the Defendant is able to pay as the grounds for appeal.