The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In light of the fact-finding of the defendant's mental condition and ability to recognize things, it cannot be said that the defendant found D with the specific purpose of retaliation.

The defendant, who is suffering from the depression, was trying to go to go to the above victim while making a harmony with the prosecutor's complaint. Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, but constitutes a crime of intimidation under the Criminal Code.

The sentence imposed by the court below on the accused (one year, three months of imprisonment and a fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the lower court’s determination of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant argued to the effect similar to the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court, under title 2-B, “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion.”

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that he did not intimidation the purpose of retaliation in this paragraph. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above decision of the court below is justified, and in light of the contents of the crime of intimidation of the purpose of retaliation in this case, the court below cannot be deemed to have weak mental condition and ability to recognize things to the extent that he did not have the purpose of retaliation at the time of the crime of intimidation.

There are circumstances that may be considered such as: (a) the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, except for the assertion that there was no retaliation, recognized all crimes and misunderstandings in depth; (b) the extent of intimidation is not serious; (c) some victims do not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (d) the Defendant received treatment by means of depression and depression.

However, the defendant is guilty of larceny, bodily injury, and violation of the Road Traffic Act.