A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A. In the case of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 2020 high order 2973, the defendant only had a dispute with the victim D, but did not have exercised a tangible power, and the charge of special intimidation was given a warning to the victim K that the defendant was "definite," and there was no threat.

In addition, there is no act such as the charge of the case 2020 order 3643 case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting all the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. At the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical weakness or mental loss due to mental disorder, such as the state of damage, sense, and exchange, etc.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor for assault in Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2020 High Court Decision 2967, which became final and conclusive on December 12, 2020. Since each crime in the judgment of the court below, which became final and conclusive on December 12, 2020, is in a concurrent relationship between the above crime and the crime after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined after considering equity and the case at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and examining whether to reduce or exempt the sentence. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

The lower court's judgment is still subject to the judgment of this court, since the Defendant's mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles, and assertion of mental or physical disorder are still subject to examination.

B. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court in determining the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine. In other words, the whole charges of this case, including the part denying the Defendant earlier, are neighboring CCTVs.