The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With respect to intimidation on February 29, 2016 among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant had verbally expressed to the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the fact that the lower court convicted this part of the facts charged.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions of this case where sentencing is unfair, the sentence of a fine of KRW 4 million imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim, as described in this part of the facts charged.

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

1) The victim D consistently stated to the effect that it conforms to the facts charged from the investigative agency to the court below.

2) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was accused of a complaint due to forced indecent act by the wife of the victim, and there was a conflict with the victim, such as where the previous victim was asked to revoke the complaint and was rejected by requesting the victim to do so.

3) At the time of the instant case, the Defendant sent the victim’s text message, “after the instant case, the Defendant sent the victim the victim’s voice and talked (the defense counsel’s opinion as of August 18, 2016) to the victim’s cell phone immediately after the victim’s speech and dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Du1448, Apr. 18, 2016).”

5) G testified in the lower court’s trial to the effect that the Defendant did not hear the victim’s statements the same as the stated in this part of the facts charged, but G was a witness (the Defendant).