A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor's grounds of appeal 1) Regarding the dismissal part of the judgment below's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the victim stated that the defendant would not withdraw his/her criminal complaint if he/she withdraws his/her criminal complaint against the defendant. In light of the contents of the statement, it is difficult to view that the victim clearly withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant. Nevertheless, the court below rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecution against this part of the facts charged by deeming that the victim withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The above sentence against which the court below's decision of unfair sentencing is rendered is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, a crime of intimidation cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent. In such a crime of non-violation of the intent, the victim’s expression of intent not to punish or withdrawal of the wishing to punish should be expressed in such a way that the victim’s genuine intent is obvious and reliable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1809 Decided June 15, 2001). In light of the above legal principles, the health stand in the instant case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, according to the suspect interrogation protocol of the Defendant on August 17, 2012, the victim asked the prosecutor about whether the Defendant wishes to punish the Defendant, and clearly stated that the Defendant does not want to punish the Defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1809, Jun. 15, 2001).

or thereafter.