The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court dismissed the public prosecution against intimidation and convicted him/her of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

On the other hand, only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor did not appeal against the dismissed portion of the public prosecution. Accordingly, among the judgment below, the dismissed portion of the above public prosecution became separate and definite, and was excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal: The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

3. The crime of this case is a matter of intimidation and assaulting the victim for the purpose of cancelling the criminal defendant's intimidation when the victim who was in an internal relationship filed a criminal complaint against the defendant.

The lower court rendered a sentence within the scope of the sentencing guidelines recommended by the sentencing committee, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and two years of suspension of execution on April 28, 2016, which became final and conclusive on May 10, 2016; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was in the period of suspension of execution due to a violation of road traffic law (driving) at the Jung-gu District Court on April 28, 2016; (c) the Defendant recognized his/her mistake and reflects the favorable circumstances; (d) the Defendant was solely agreed with the victim that the damaged person did not want the Defendant to be punished against the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s family members and his/her supporters want to be punished against the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant’s wife wanted to be punished against the Defendant.

The sentencing of the lower court seems to have been appropriately determined by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and the circumstances alleged by the Defendant due to unfair sentencing have already been determined by the lower court.