The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with regard to special intimidation 1) The Defendant merely left the victim’s horse at the victim’s end and left the victim’s hair with excessive influence, and did not mean that “the victim would die........... the victim said that “the victim would be dead or killed............ the victim would have caused the victim to die,” and the horses were left from the center to the center to prevent the victim from self-injury. Accordingly, the Defendant could not be said to have threatened the victim. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant only supposed or acted in a certain size of speech and behavior that led to a conflict with the victim, and did not have any intention to threaten the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 200 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to special intimidation, the Defendant alleged to the same effect in the lower court’s judgment. Accordingly, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as indicated in its judgment. 2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant and the victim were living together from October 2016, and the day of the instant case was the day before the marriage ceremony was set. 2) Around that time, the Defendant and the victim were repeatedly disputing the Defendant and the victim against whom the instant case took place, and repeated the same time. The Defendant and the victim sent and sent the horses to the victim, such as head and flading, etc., and the victim reported the victim to the Southern-gu.