The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The lower court’s determination that found the Defendant guilty of each of the instant charges in the following respect:

(1) The defendant does not threaten E as stated in the facts constituting a crime of the lower judgment.

② It is true that the Defendant told H as stated in paragraph (2) of the crime committed in the judgment below. However, H first made a personal attack speech to the Defendant, thereby responding to the caric book in which H’s personal character was written. Therefore, there was no perception that the Defendant would threaten.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case is justifiable.

(1) The defendant may recognize that he/she has made the same remarks as the facts charged.

E’s statement about the contents of interview with Defendant and intimidation is very concrete.

It is also highly probable that the defendant prepared a work report on the idea that such a report should no longer be repeated after he/she becomes aware of the fact that he/she made intimidation as well as he/she himself/herself.

In this regard, this is the same in light of the fact that C prison disciplinary committee decided disciplinary action against the defendant (196-213 investigation records).

The Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant had heard the horses of E that are not permitted to use the phone and returned to the acceptance room (169 pages of the investigation record). In doing so, the Defendant had an interview with H on September 26, 2017, and provided an explanation of the circumstances, “in interview with E on September 26, 2017, it is necessary to reconvene the same fluor.

whether the statement was not reported or not.

“I seem to have been “” (107 pages of investigation records). Considering this point, there was a dialogue between the Defendant and the circumstances necessary to use the phone at the time of the first interview with E and the reasons for which it cannot be permitted.