The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not have any fact of intimidationing the victim as stated in the facts charged, and further, the victim said that “I am saved down, saved,” but it is merely an influent expression, and there was no sexual intent or insult at the time.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The judgment of the court below and the court below also asserted the same purport. However, the court below rejected the defendant's statement in the police and the court below's decision as follows: (i) the victim closed the trees fixed by the defendant's line at the police and the court of the court of the court below by hand, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated; (ii) the victim stated that "I would like to say I would like to say I would like to see"; (ii) the police and the court of the court of the court of the court below, which carried this article on the spot, stated that the victim "I would am "I would like to am, I would like to am"; and (iii) the victim stated that I would like to am the victim's sound, which was consistent with the victim's statement in the process of dispute over the return of deposit money, etc.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in detail with the records of this case, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant threatened the victim as stated in the facts of crime in the judgment below, and that at the time there was a criminal intent to insult the defendant.

Therefore, this is applicable.