The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to ① special intimidation, the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the fact is nothing more than seeking to cause harm to the victim, such as as described in the facts charged, but rather intending to use a scambrow for arranging snowbrow. ② In regard to intrusion upon residence, the victim’s studio as described in the facts charged falls under a place in which the Defendant and the victim living together, and thus, constitutes a joint residence, and thus, the Defendant cannot be acknowledged as having infringed upon the Defendant’s residence.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) the victim consistently stated that, until the investigation agency and the court of the court of the court below, a series of cases occurred in the process of hedging with the victim, the victim’s care was excessive and threatened with the victim; and (ii) the victim sent E message with the victim’s knife immediately after the special intimidation in this case, that it is difficult for the victim to use the victim’s knife or commit suicide; and (iii) the Defendant did not look at the victim’s knife or governance, “,” and did not look at the victim’s knife, “,” and tried to use the victim’s body knife and knife, “,” and “,” and attempted to do so.

In light of the fact that it is relatively small and easy to provide a large body without threatening to the other party, the above conversation was made on the premise that the Defendant committed excessive activities, not the face-to-face for the eyebrow settlement, and ③ the Defendant voluntarily acknowledged the fact that there was a little knife against the other victims whose knife had been knife around the time indicated in the facts charged.