The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s speech of misunderstanding facts cannot be deemed as intimidation because it is merely a temporary expression of appraisal.

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

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s argument of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, but the lower court rejected the above argument on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined. Although the lower court did not reach an agreement on the division of property and the issuance of a certificate of seal impression between the Defendant and the victim at the time of the instant case, the Defendant would be punished for dispute by unilaterally demanding the Defendant to issue a certificate of seal impression to the victim two times at around 09:0,00, the time of the instant case’s attendance and around 11:40, around the point of time at around 09:0, the time of the instant case’s attendance, and at around 11:40, the time of the first instance trial, the company accompanying the victim was a company operating the victim’s assistance division. However, as of the time of the instant case’s appearance, the lower court appears to have sufficiently known that the above employees had not been exposed to the victim’s family or relative.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing is a matter of divorce between the victim and the victim.