The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although there was no fact that the Defendant made a misunderstanding of facts (a intimidation) by threatening the victim as stated in Paragraph 1 of the facts charged, and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2,00,000 won) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a resident of C apartment, the victim D is a person who provides services for the repair of clothes in the head office of C Apartment E E-Welfare, and the victim F is a welfare director.

On February 2, 2017, the Defendant purchased 10 clothes for male use from the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the Busan Young-gu apartment E-welfare hall in Busan Young-do, and the victim D purchased the 10th floor of the 10th floor of the 3rd floor of the 2017, so this difference in this context because the business does not fit.

“ but at the time of rejection from the injured party, b. c. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d. d.

The Methical Methical Methical Methical Methical Methical Methical althical althical althical althical althical althical althic.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence duly admitted and examined was comprehensively admitted and the fact that the Defendant made intimidation to the victim as stated in the lower judgment was recognized.

(c)

In light of the spirit of substantial direct deliberation under the Criminal Procedure Act adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, the appellate court clearly erred in the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance trial.

Unless exceptional circumstances exist to the contrary, the first deliberation decision on the credibility of a witness’s statement shall be respected (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006, etc.). The appellate court may have an objective effect on the formation of a documentary evidence in the course of its deliberation.