The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is no misunderstanding of facts against the victim's head debt or intimidation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the imprisonment for six months, the suspension of execution for two years, the probation, the order to attend a violence therapy for forty hours, and the order to provide community service for 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below judged that the credibility of the victim's statement in the facts charged of this case can be recognized in light of the fact that the victim, even after the victim expressed his intention not to punish the defendant, stated in the court below that he would be subject to intimidation to the effect that "influence of death" from the defendant and had his head borrowed, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below found the judgment of the court below reasonable and there was no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts in light of the

B. It is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court when there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion. Although the first instance court’s sentencing falls within the reasonable scope of discretion, it is desirable to reverse the first instance court’s judgment and to refrain from imposing a sentence that does not differ from the first instance court on the sole ground that

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the original judgment on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial and the lower court did not recognize that the lower court’s sentencing is too too unreasonable and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.