Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Defendant 1) Unless there was an intention to mistake facts or to threaten the victim, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute intimidation of the crime of intimidation. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Since it is clear that the Defendant was fluoring the victim’s chest, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misconception of facts, even though the Defendant found the Defendant guilty of assault corresponding to the reduction of the injured part among the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor maintains the facts charged as to the acquittal portion of the court below as the primary facts charged, and applies for the amendment of indictment with the content that the facts charged are modified as stated in the conjunctive facts charged, and this court permitted it.

As examined below, this court maintains the judgment of innocence of the court below as to the primary facts charged, and does not accept the defendant's assertion on the guilty part of the court below. Since the crime of assault and intimidation recognized in the court of original instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the court below's judgment cannot be maintained.

However, even if there is a reason to reverse ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the guilty portion of the original judgment, and the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the acquittal portion

B. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is subject to intimidation.