[Attachment 2-Attachment 2]

(a)To destroy parts concerning the offence;

Two years of imprisonment.

On the other hand, only the defendant filed an appeal for the reason that the sentencing was unfair.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below dismissing the prosecution was determined separately as it is and excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

3. To examine ex officio the reasons for appeal prior to the judgment ex officio.

In the first instance of the trial, a prosecutor shall use the name of the crime concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual intimidation) among the facts charged in the instant case as habitual intimidation. Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 285 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act are changed to Article 285 of the Criminal Act; Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 3(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 258-2(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 283(1) of the same Act is changed to the content of the amendment to the indictment.

On the other hand, the court below recognized the remaining criminal facts as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, except for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual intimidation), the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.) and the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

Therefore, the remaining part of the judgment below excluding the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act (attached Form 2-2)

(a)a portion relating to the offence shall no longer be maintained;

4...