Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have threatened the victim, such as misunderstanding of facts as alleged in the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (nine years of imprisonment, 10 years of disclosure and notification, 10 years of the attachment order of an electronic tracking device, and 10 years of the attachment order of an electronic tracking device) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s assertion that the Prosecutor’s assertion is too unfased and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides for a limited term of not less than one year, which is greater than the statutory penalty under the Criminal Act, where a person commits the crime of assault, intimidation, etc. under the Criminal Act for the purpose of preventing the provision of a criminal investigation team, such as a criminal charge or accusation, the purpose of retaliation against the investigation or trial of his/her criminal case or another person, or the provision of a criminal investigation team, such as a criminal charge or accusation, from submitting a statement, testimony or materials, or in order to cancel the submission of a false statement or testimony.

Here, whether an actor had such an objective should be reasonably determined in light of social norms by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the offender’s age, occupation, and other personal factors; motive and process of the crime; method of the crime; content and mode of the act; personal relationship with the victim; and the circumstances before and after the crime.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court of the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant threatened the victims for the purpose of providing a criminal investigation team or retaliation against his/her criminal investigation or trial, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

(1) A victim C (hereinafter referred to as “victim”).