The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was aware of the victim's contact information for a long time, was able to walk one face or display one another, and was aware of the victim's contact information in the event of a long time, and did not have the intent of retaliation or intimidation as stated in the judgment of the court below.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of social service, 80 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when the purpose of retaliation is to provide a criminal investigation team, such as a complaint or accusation, or to make a statement, testimony, or submit materials in connection with the investigation or trial of his/her or another person's criminal case. The purpose of the crime is not required to be active or conclusive recognition, and the crime is satisfied if there is an incomplete perception. Whether there was such purpose should be reasonable determination in light of social norms by taking into account various circumstances such as the defendant's age, occupation, etc., motive, background, means, method, and relation with the victim.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s experience as well as the victim’s personal activity at the time, and ② the Defendant, a member of a violence organization, called a victim who had no contact for at least five years, and made a statement of the victim’s report by phone call to the victim who had no contact with each other for at least five years; and ③ the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment by the victim’s report.