A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and fine for 700,000 won.

The defendant above.

A. Although the fact that the victim sent text messages to the victim is a misunderstanding of legal principles, it seems that in its content, adults did not only exceed the level of general use but also did not reach the degree of informing the victim that they would have shown physical harm or tangible power. Thus, even if not, if considering the circumstances leading to the act in this case and the relationship between the defendant and the victim, etc., the judgment of the court below which recognized the crime of intimidation was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of each judgment of the court below on unfair sentencing (the original judgment: the fine of KRW 700,000, the second judgment of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for six months, the suspension of execution for one year, and the third judgment of the court below: the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, this Court decided to concurrently examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. Since the first, second, and third judgments of the court below found the defendant guilty in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the crimes of the court below's first, second, and third judgments cannot be punished separately as the judgment of the court below, and should be punished in accordance with the provisions of Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment of concurrent crimes, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more in this respect.

There is such reason for ex officio reversal against the defendant.

Even if the defendant's third judgment of the court below is subject to the judgment of this court, this paper examines the legal principles.

3. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected all the above arguments in the part “as to the defense counsel’s assertion.”