The defendant shall be innocent.

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have prepared a certified mail text of the instant case, and was led by the parents of the instant school, and sent out the text in the name of the Defendant.

The Defendant did not know that there was the same content as the facts charged among the content-certified mail of the instant case and did not have the intent of intimidation by merely consenting to the dispatch of content-certified mail.

B. Legal doctrine misunderstanding (1) The content of the content-certified mail of this case does not constitute a threat of harm.

(2) The act of sending the content-certified mail of this case constitutes a justifiable act.

(c)

It is unfair that the sentencing of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that “by using computer network prote at the above E school library around April 5, 2013,” which read “after the beginning of April 2013, the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment to the effect that “by using computer network prote at the above E school,” and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the judgment of the court below, despite the above reasons for reversal, is still subject to the judgment of the court, since the defendant's mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is the principal of the alternative school called E in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.

After the victim FF children entered the above school, the Defendant was accused of embezzlement of embezzlement from the victim F while conflicting with the refund of deposits, such as the victim F, the victim G (W, 39 years of age) and tuition fees, and from the victim F. On April 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint of provisional attachment and embezzlement after undergoing a meeting of staff and parents at the above E school.