All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Special intimidation (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) (misunderstanding of facts) is a special intimidation (misunderstanding of facts). Although the Defendant driving a gallon with a gallon vehicle as indicated in the judgment of the court below and prevented the victim from driving beyond the central line, the Defendant did not threaten the victim.

B) On July 2016, the Defendant did not have made a threat by phone call to the victim as stated in the lower judgment.

C) On July 29, 2016, the Defendant posted a notice on the Internet website as stated in the lower court’s holding, but it was not intended to make a intimidation, and the victim deleted the above notice before reading it, so the lower court, despite having failed to reach the minimum acceptance of intimidation, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

2) The lower court’s sentence (the imprisonment of eight months and the suspension of the execution of two years) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In a situation where the victim refused to meet with the Defendant and is well aware of the fact, the Defendant entered the 1st floor entrance door of an apartment without permission, as stated in the judgment of the court below.

Nevertheless, the lower court: (a) had a criminal intent to injure the peace of the victim’s residence or intrude the victim’s residence; or

For the reason that it is difficult to see it, there is an error of law due to mistake of facts.

B) On June 2016, the victim of the embezzlement refused to meet with the defendant and to take the hedging.

While requesting return of the key to the judgment of the court below, the defendant again refused to return the key to the judgment of the court below, but the defendant did not return it in the course of investigation conducted by an investigative agency around August 2016.

Therefore, even though the defendant should be punished by embezzlement, there is an intention of illegal acquisition.

see.