The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant, who had lost his mobile phone, requested the victim to return his mobile phone and duly demand it, the court below convicted all of the charges of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (the penalty amounting to KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. On the other hand, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below found the victim who was in custody of the lost defendant's mobile phone and requested the return of the lost defendant's mobile phone, and the victim confirmed whether the victim was the owner of the mobile phone through the police officer, he/she will return the mobile phone.

However, it is recognized that the police officer interfered with the guard duty of the victim for about one hour before the police officer called for the immediate return of the mobile phone and takes a desire to return the mobile phone.

In addition, although the defendant's wife called the above mobile phone, it was confirmed that the defendant is the owner of the mobile phone.

However, in light of the victim's statement in the court below's statement, etc., it seems that the defendant insultings the victim for a considerable period of time, and such confirmation has been made during the process of interfering with the business. Thus, it is not unreasonable for the victim to have the victim called a bridge before the police officer gets involved in the clerical error. Thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant continued to take the victim's desire and interfere with the victim's business as a legitimate act acceptable in light of the social norms.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is rejected.

B. The defendant still suffered considerable mental damage due to the defendant's crime of determining the unfair argument of sentencing.