All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charge of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc. on retaliation) by the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim would arrange his marital relationship and live together with the Defendant

There was a deep relationship between the defendant and the defendant to the extent of doing so.

This victim filed a complaint against the defendant, while the victim and the victim were in mind about the complaint issue, the victim appeared to have an interest only in the money, and the victim feel a sense of confidence and made an emotional desire for the victim.

Such a abusiveism does not constitute a intimidation that has notified the victim of harm to the extent that the victim may cause fear.

In fact, the victim was frightened by fear.

It is difficult to see that the defendant had no purpose of retaliation against the victim.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) As to the preliminary point of fire prevention of existing buildings, and the special intimidation, the Defendant, while showing the victim’s self-governing form, merely sought the victim by she she she she she she she shelshes the victim’s body and she did not possess at that time.

In this regard, since the statements of the victims are not consistent with the time when the defendant taken off the reporters, the types and colors of the reporters, etc., their statements are not reliable.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The defendant asserts that the amount of the punishment is unfair because the defendant is too unaffortable, and that the amount of the punishment is unfair. The prosecutor asserts that the amount of the punishment is too unaffortable, and that the amount of the punishment is unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine.