The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant misunderstanding of the facts as to the crime No. 2-B. 2-B in the judgment of the court below was not a threat to the victim on February 16, 2016, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence of the lower court (10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime, 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the remaining crime, 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake as to the crime No. 2-B. 2-B of the holding, namely, ① the victim called the Defendant, who was living together with the Defendant at the first investigative agency on February 14, 2016, after completely ging the Defendant, who was living together with the Defendant on February 14, 2016, called the Defendant with clothes; and the Defendant citing and threatening the victim’s house and soldiers.

According to the statement (Evidence No. 17) and Kakao Stockholm message submitted by the victim, the victim sent to the defendant the message "on February 16, 2016, 3:31,000, the victim sent to the security room the message "on the part of the victim, who had been able to get clothes and brought about to the security room", "on the same day, at around 12:33, the victim sent each message "in the parking lot for the next place, I have a vehicle," at around 12:39, "the next place is assigned to the security room," and "the next place shall be left to the security room," "the calculation of tax base of tax base, and the first place of tax base," and "the first place of tax base, 113 of the evidence record) of the victim sent to the defendant each message "on the part of the defendant who was frightd by the defendant with his illness."

A. On February 16, 2016, when an investigator asked questions of the investigator, the South Korean characters, namely, that the defendant and the letter domains disputing the suspect to leave clothes to the guard room, regardless of whether he or she found the body, and the defendant tried to go in the house in which he or she intends to go.

The statements were made and the above message was sent around 12:39 p.m. on the same day.

In this paper, the defendant's inquiry is found in his house and there is no good appraisal because he attempts to see the defendant as an illness.