The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to the facts, the Defendant was guilty of intimidation, even though there was no intimidation on the date and time ( March 1, 2016) of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) On March 13, 2017, the Defendant, who was injured by confinement, committed verbal abuse and bodily injury to the victim by investing in the telecom with the victim, such as the victim, was not confined in order to prevent the victim from combining or leaving the victim, and the Defendant did not intend to commit so. Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constituted confinement.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (4 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of intimidation, the Defendant led to the confession of this part of the facts charged in the prosecutor’s office and the lower court’s court.

On March 1, 2017, the Defendant’s statement of the police of the victim C (Evidence No. 255-256 pages) and the victim’s telephone content on March 1, 2017 (Evidence No. 37 No. 57 of the evidence list No. 57 of the record), and on March 1, 2017, the Defendant expressed his desire to the victim of the cryp officials and sent “I am far away from her husband’s her husband’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her husband’s son’s son

Now, it was known that she was entering the Republic of Korea.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, including “the victim’s husband, such as the victim’s husband, who has threatened the victim with the intent to know the relationship between the Defendant and the victim,” etc., the prosecutorial confessions by the Defendant and the lower court may be deemed to have credibility, and the fact that the Defendant has threatened the victim on March 1, 2017, such as this part of the facts charged

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.