The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (related to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the facts stated in the judgment below) did not mislead the Defendant of the facts, or did not use a cab owned by the victim F taxi (hereinafter “instant taxi”) or assault or threaten the victim F, on March 14, 2017, and did not shock the front part of the said cab with a white boom on March 14, 2017, and there was no objective evidence as to the booming of the instant taxi. In short, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on March 13, 2017, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, by misapprehending the fact or misapprehending the legal doctrine, as to the damage of property, assault, or special intimidation, and the thief or damage of special property.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year and three months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court. In other words, the victim F, as consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, consistently, from March 13, 2017 to the court of the court below, "the defendant set the back a part of the back wheels of the instant taxi on March 13, 2017, was pushed off with the back gate of the victim F, was pushed down with a wall by breath, and the victim F, was driving the flab with the victim F.

It has been why we can say, why is, or why is.

죽여 버린다” 고 말하여 협박하였다’ 고 구체적으로 진술하고 있는 점, ② 피해자 C 또한 원심 법정에서 ‘ 피고인이 2017. 3. 13. 오토바이를 타고 피해자 F을 향해 진행할 것처럼 왔다갔다 하는 것을 보았다’ 고 피해자 F의 위 진술에 부합하는 진술을 하고 있고, 피고인이 2017. 3. 14. 흰색 포터 차량을 이 사건 범행 현장에 댔었다고

On March 14, 2017, CCTV images (Evidence No. 197 attachment) at the scene of crime are similar to the appearance of the defendant on a white boom vehicle.