The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who was aware of the fact, was released from prison after being released from prison, found the victim again to compromise with the victim, and did not take retaliation for the purpose of retaliation, but did not take the victim’s bath.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of retaliation intimidation. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for the provision of proviso to investigation, such as a complaint or accusation, the purpose of retaliation against the submission of a statement, testimony or data in connection with the investigation of or judgment on his/her criminal case or another person’s criminal case, or the provision of proviso to investigation, such as a complaint or accusation, prevents the submission of a statement, testimony or data, or prevents the submission of a false statement, testimony or data, or orders the cancellation of a complaint or accusation or the submission of a false statement, testimony or data, etc., under the Criminal Act, the crime of assault or intimidation, etc. is punished by imprisonment for more than

In this context, the determination as to whether an actor had such an objective ought to be made reasonably in light of social norms by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances, such as the offender’s age, occupation, and other personal factors, motive, details and means of the crime, details and mode of the act, personal relationship with the victim, and circumstances before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12055, Jun. 14, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health care unit for the instant case in light of the foregoing facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim for the purpose of retaliation in relation to his criminal case or trial can be sufficiently recognized.