The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles acknowledged the fact that the defendant threatened the victim on July 27, 2015 as stated in the lower court’s holding on the following facts, the defendant merely made a little little contingent speech under the influence of alcohol, and did not make such a speech with the purpose of retaliation against the victim.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles alleged in the lower court’s judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) on the grounds that the Defendant alleged to the effect that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the aforementioned facts; and (b) on the grounds that detailed circumstances were stated in the

Examining the circumstances admitted by the court below in a consistent manner with the evidence duly admitted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that the defendant made intimidation to the victim in itself is recognized, and thus his mistake is against the victim. The prior to the instant case, the defendant did not have any particular harm to the victim while maintaining a smooth relationship with the victim, who is a workplace partner, and seems to have had no intention to actually realize the harm and injury that was notified as a result of committing the instant crime. The victim’s filing of a complaint with an investigative agency with the contents of a somewhat exaggerated exaggeration regarding the Defendant’s trade union activities may cause the Defendant to commit each of the instant crimes, and there are some other circumstances that may be taken into account in the course of committing the instant crime. The Defendant was punished three times from 1993 to 200, and there is no criminal record other than those subject to a fine.