The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is the fact that the defendant is less than twice of the victim's face by hand, etc., but there was no assault by the victim, such as when she faces the victim's face, and when sending the victim's phone number to D's address by printing out the Kakao Kakao Stockholm message exchanged with D with the victim and sending it to D's address. However, this act was done to the effect that he did not know of D's telephone number, and the court below found him guilty of each of the facts of this case even though he did not threaten the victim's face, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the crime of assault, namely, victim E and D consistently state from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court that “The Defendant, who was in the house of D along with D, i.e., the Defendant, on his own ground, went beyond 3 hiffing off the face of E,” and considering the relationship between the Defendant, D and the victim, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant committed assault, such as taking the victim’s face and hiffing it as indicated in the judgment of the lower court.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the crime of intimidation: (i) the Defendant printed out text messages sent for four months to the victim E and D and sent the victim’s mobile phone numbers to the victim’s address; (ii) although the Defendant stated the victim’s mobile phone numbers on the ground that he was unaware of the victim’s mobile phone numbers, the Defendant merely stated the victim’s telephone numbers and did not intend to threaten the victim; (iii) however, the Defendant was the victim before sending the above text messages.