The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal (one year of imprisonment, confiscation, and collection) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is reasonable in light of the following circumstances: (a) the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case as committing each of the crimes of this case; (b) the defendant violated his mistake; (c) the defendant agreed with D, who was the victim of the crime of intimidation for the purpose of retaliation of this case; and (d) the defendant has no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment; or (c) the defendant reported to the investigation agency that D, who was aware of the fact that he possessed marijuana, reported the fact that he was in possession of marijuana, and the crime of intimidation for the purpose of retaliation of this case was threatened with D and E, who was the wife, and the crime of intimidation for the purpose of retaliation of this case was committed against the defendant; (d) the crime of intimidation for the purpose of retaliation of this case, threat of continued existence of marijuana, etc.; and (e) the defendant's crime of intimidation of this case was not committed against the defendant's criminal intent of this case at the time when he was subject to the actual questioning of detention warrant on July 13, 2012.

[On the other hand, the prosecutor stated that the defendant was indicted for violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the defendant was at the entrance of the GY-si Station at around 11:00 on March 29, 2012 and purchased approximately 100,000 won as the price for the sale of marijuana at the entrance of the GY-si Station at the GY-si Station at around 11:0 on March 29, 2012; however, Article 59 (1) 12 and 3 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. before being amended by Act No. 10786 on June 7, 201.