The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant, as the representative of the apartment occupant, was obligated by the head of the apartment control office H as the head of the Tong in the name of the victim to clarify the truth with respect to the unlawful act of prohibiting the apartment management proceeds by illegally entering the passbook in the name of the victim, and the victim who was known for several years requested the preparation of a confirmation of facts in the mind that he want not to be deemed as H and the accomplice, and there was no fact that the victim was threatened in the process and there was no intention of coercion.

(2) In addition, around August 22, 2012, the Defendant requested the victim to prepare a written confirmation of facts and to have a notarial deed, and there was no demand from the victim on August 28, 2012 as indicated in the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that there was no criminal intention of coercion or coercion, the court below rejected this part of the argument by stating in detail the argument and its decision under the title "the judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel" in the judgment of the court below, which is the same as the grounds for appeal in this part. In light of the records and a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (However, since "D" is a clerical error in the "H", all of them are referred to as "H"), and even considering all the circumstances alleged by the defendant as the grounds for appeal and the circumstances alleged by the defendant as the reasons for appeal and the legal statements by G, it shall not be deemed that there was an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

(2) On August 22, 2012, the Defendant knew of the account held in the name of the victim and made a serious speech, but thereafter, continued to be the victim.