A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final.

A. In fact, the Defendant did not misunderstanding the victim H that did not inflict harm on the victim H by putting a worker.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the special intimidation of this case (Article 2 of the crime of this case as stated in the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the observation of protection, the community service order of 80 hours, the confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On September 21, 2016, the summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant did not witness the victim H (26 tax) who passed the said place on September 21, 2016 at the front line of Gyeonggi-gu taxi on September 21, 2016; and (b) the Defendant did not witness the scene of destroying the parked vehicles as stated in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the lower judgment.

In other words, the victim continued to be in accordance with the victim, and threatened with danger and injury, such as booming, which is a dangerous object.

2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in accordance with the evidence in its holding.

3) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim H was in the investigative agency’s view at the time and place of this part of the facts charged, as well as at the time and place where the Defendant was placed, and the victim H was in the process of hearing the sound of the other 20 males and returned to the lower court.

At night, a written statement stating that male flag strings, flagss, flags, and flags, flags, flags, and flags, and reported to the other military members that they would have suffered damage. The description of the defendant's behavior and the background leading up to flags, etc. are clearly stated, and there is no motive to harm the defendant as the victim did not exist, and thus, the above statement has credibility. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20689, Feb. 2, 2004>