At an appeal hearing last month, Rudd's lawyer Craig Tuck argued the sentencing judge, Judge Thomas Ingram, had erred in the way he assessed the gravity of Rudd's offending and the discounts he allowed for mitigating factors.
Mr Tuck told Justice Raynor Asher that Judge Ingram had not giving sufficient weight to the "cataclysmic consequences" stemming from Rudd's convictions and sentence, which resulted in losses in the "tens of millions" of income.
Mr Tuck further argued the starting point of 18 months' imprisonment for the September 26, 2014 threat to kill offence against one of Rudd's former contractors was too high.
He said the usual sanction for the drugs charges would have been a fine or community work, but instead extra home detention had been added.
Crown prosecutor Anna Pollett argued Rudd had tried to "gloss over" the seriousness of his offending, and the victim had genuinely feared for his and his family's safety and also lost his job.
Miss Pollett said no criticisms could be made of Judge Ingram's sentencing approach, which included his taking into account Rudd's two prior discharges without conviction for cannabis possession and common assault, which related to threatening behaviour.
Rudd had so far only paid $50,000 to the victim, she said.
