The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The facts are as follows: although the Defendant misunderstanding of the fact cited plastic shot, the victim did not display plastic shot as the head of the victim was at the time, and the victim did not have a flick with the face of the defendant, put a flick, put a flick with the head of the victim in response thereto, and the defendant did not have the face of the victim once.

Therefore, the defendant did not intimidation and assault the victim as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below.

B. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, was physically and mentally deprived of mental division at the time of committing the crime.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant threatened the victim and abused the defendant by doing the act as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment

full recognition may be accepted.

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

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation on the ground that the lower court stated the judgment under the title “judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion.”

Examining the judgment of the court below in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's assertion.

(c)

Although there is no history of punishment of the Defendant regarding the wrongful argument of sentencing, and there is a psychological unstable due to family dissatisfy and incidental problems, etc., considering the fact that no agreement has been reached with the victim, taking into account the following: the degree of intimidation and assault in this case; the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, and circumstances of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, the punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, it is true.