Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and four months.

Defendant

A.

A. As to the issue of intimidation and assault among the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A1 submitted to the court below a written agreement containing the victim’s intent not to punish the Defendant, the court below’s dismissal judgment as to each of the above facts charged should be pronounced. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty.

2) The sentence of the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) The Defendant, from around 15:00 on July 17, 2017 to around 17:00 on the same day, reported by a phone call to the victim AP (22:3) located within the building AO in racing-si, and reported the fact that the Defendant received illegal loans in the name of the victim, he/she died of the child-friendly, female-friendly, and child-related money.

“............ as the victim would be at any risk over 10 times.....

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim.

2) On July 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 15:40 on the AR parking lot located in Q Q on July 18, 2017; (b) requested the victim to open two cell phoness in the name of the said victim; (c) however, the victim did not open his/her cell phone through a mobile phone due to the unpaid charge relationship; and (d) caused the victim’s loss by two times.

Accordingly, the defendant committed assault against the victim.

B. Each of the facts charged in this part of the judgment is an offense falling under Articles 283(1) and 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Articles 283(3) and 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

However, according to the records of this case, the Defendant was punished against the Defendant on March 21, 2018, which was prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, on the ground that the said victim received an agreed amount of KRW 500,000 from the Defendant.