The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal principles, the Defendant found a main point that the victim E works in order to reach an agreement on the assault case around December 6, 2015, which was around December 6, 2015, and agreed with the above victim. The Defendant did not intimidation the above victim for the purpose of retaliation or interfere with the business of the victim F.

In addition, the defendant did not find out the main points of the victims to get on December 2015.

On March 2016, the Defendant returned to the above main points.

At that time, there was no fact that the defendant threatened the victim E or obstructed the business of the victim F, and there was no enemy demanding the victim E to pay rent.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles that found guilty of each of the facts charged.

The punishment of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds that the Defendant alleged to the same effect as the alleged misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court explained detailed circumstances, etc. at the 5th 17 or 9th 18 of the judgment.

Examining the circumstances acknowledged by the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the judgment of the court below is just.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the purpose of retaliation against the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the date and time of the crime, or the taking of intimidation property, as

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

Each of the crimes of this case with regard to the wrongful argument of sentencing has been punished by the victim E's statement, and the victim E again has received a written agreement, and then threatened the victims for the purpose of retaliation.