The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, who dialogueed with the victim, was only sprinking the floor of the office with a pipe, and did not have any harm the victim and intimidation.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal.

As to this, the court below made a consistent statement to the effect that the victim was aware of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the court below, namely, ① from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below, the victim got the hack pipe to himself, and, from the time of the court of the court below to the court of the court below, he consistently made a statement to the effect that “I would see the hack pipe,” “I would see the above hack pipe because I would have hack the hack pipe,” ② The witness E who was working in the office of the victim, such as the victim, was also consistently hacking the victim and the defendant with the hack pipe since the investigative agency, and the court of the court of the court below stated that “I would am out of the office of the court of the court of the court below, but the victim was aware of the hacker who reported the hacker's hack

In doing so, the victim and the defendant made a statement to the effect that “The victim and the defendant have hack pipeed and hacks down one another,” and that the above E’s statement does not seem to have made a statement by tending a relatively detailed and false fact in a relatively detailed manner, and ③ the Defendant denies the fact that the victim would have hack pipe down, but at the time, the Defendant brought the hack pipe floor.