The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Fraud 1) The Defendant merely received 120,000,000 won from E under the pretext of the contract price for an entertainment contract for I, and promised to allow I to contribute to the program indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant provided I with the above entertainment contract faithfully. Therefore, the Defendant did not commit deception as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant did not commit intimidation to the Defendant on June 3, 2017 (the Defendant did not commit deception as stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not have any intention to commit fraud). The Defendant’s intimidation to the Defendant on June 3, 2017, 2017 (i) had repeatedly expressed an insulting speech to the Defendant, and (ii) had no intention to commit intimidation, and (iii) had no intention to threaten the Defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant alleged that the fraud was identical to the assertion in this part in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in its judgment, and in full view of the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. The Defendant’s allegation in this part of the evidence is without merit in relation to the crime of intimidation as to June 3, 2017, refers to the notification of harm and injury to the extent that it would normally cause fear to an ordinary person, and thus, the actor’s intent as a subjective constituent element of the crime is such.