The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in this case’s assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant did not have any fact of intimidation against the victim, even though he did not have any fact of intimidation against the victim, and did not have any purpose of retaliation.

B. As to the intimidation of the purpose of retaliation among the facts charged in the instant case claiming mental or physical disorder, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the assertion of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 주장에 대한 판단 (1) 전화를 걸어 협박한 사실이 없다는 주장에 대한 판단 원심 및 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 피고인이 2012. 6. 25. 22:30경 피해자 D가 운영하는 ‘E’ 주점에서 술을 마신 후 그 대금을 내지 않고 욕설을 하며 테이블을 발로 차는 등 위 주점의 업무를 방해한 사실, 이에 피해자 D가 112에 신고를 하였고, 피고인은 출동한 경찰관에 의하여 임의동행 되어 서울양천경찰서에서 조사 받은 후 나오면서 피해자 D에게 전화를 걸어 “야, 이 씨발년아, 니가 장사를 계속 할 수 있는지 보자, 너 잠깐 기다려 내가 지금 갈테니까, 꼼짝 말고 기다려”라고 협박한 사실, 피해자 D는 위 전화를 받은 후 겁을 먹고 사설경비업체에 구조요청을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(2) The crime under Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established with respect to the assertion that there was no retaliation for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of an investigation force, such as a complaint or accusation, a statement, testimony, or submission of materials in connection with the investigation or trial of his or another person's criminal case. The purpose of the crime is not required to be active or conclusive but to have doluence.