The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution against the Defendant regarding intimidation on May 4, 2020 among the facts charged against the Defendant, and convicted the Defendant of the remainder of the crime.

As to this, only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the judgment below, the dismissed part of the indictment was separated and determined as it is after the lapse of the appeal period, and excluded from the scope of the judgment in the trial of the party.

When each of the crimes of this case was committed, the defendant was in a state of weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. Decision of the court below on unreasonable sentencing: two years of imprisonment.

2. Determination

A. The court below rejected the defendant's argument in detail at the bottom of the evidence of the judgment, on the ground that the defendant's argument is identical to the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the defendant's argument in detail at the bottom of the evidence of the judgment. The court below's decision is just and just, and the defendant's argument in this part is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is contrary to the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and the Defendant’s family members wanted the Defendant’s preference, but repeatedly and concentrately repeats the same type of punishment two times and even during the same repeated period; the victim G has obstructed telephone service over 50 times and thus the degree of damage is not less severe; the victim G has not been agreed with the victims; and other various sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, such as motive and circumstance of the crime, the Defendant’s health, character, conduct and environment, etc. do not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; the lower court’s sentencing does not seem to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion; and there is no change in sentencing conditions that can be deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the lower court, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.