(b) coercion;

(c) Violation of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc.

D. Violation of the Animal Protection Act

(e) Habitual assault;

(f) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(g) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(h) Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization;

Anti-information and communication network infringement, etc.

C

2. H.

B

[Defendant-Appellee]

Law Firm LBP Partners (For Defendant C)

Attorney Kim Jong-dae, Kim Jong-tae, and Soverju

Attorney Lee Jong-sung, Attorneys Lee Jin-soo (for the defendant C)

Law Firm Woo (for Defendant B)

1.2

1. As to Defendant C’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted all of the charges against Defendant C of coercion, habitual assault, violation of the Animal Protection Act, and violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (excluding part of acquittal and acquittal) (excluding part of acquittal and acquittal) (excluding part of acquittal and acquittal). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of each crime of coercion, violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (information and communications network infringement, etc.), habitual assault, statute of limitations, and double indictment, etc., of the crime of habitual assault.

The allegation that there is a ground for dismissing public prosecution on the grounds that the charges of violation of the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Violation of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc.) with respect to victims BD and nine other are not specified in the judgment below, is asserted only when Defendant C uses it as a ground for appeal or when the court below did not consider it as an object of judgment

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of charges. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim Gin-soo

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court: