The sentence against the accused shall be 2,00,000 won.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. In light of the fact that C, around July 10, 2009 and July 11, 2009, the Defendant was detained, threatened, and received a letter from the Defendant, etc., and the Defendant was injured jointly with D on or around August 9, 2009, the complaint stated in paragraph (1) of the crime of the lower judgment does not constitute a report of false facts. However, even though it does not constitute a report of false facts, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this part of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges.

B. The perjury stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below is merely the defendant testified in the court as of February 23, 2011 and March 25, 2011. Thus, although the defendant's testimony stated in paragraph (2) of the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below does not constitute a false statement contrary to the defendant's memory, the court below convicted the defendant of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. Before determining on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant of Amendments to Bill of Indictment, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case ex officio, and the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the instant case as follows.

(1) An application for amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed with the content of partial changes as stated in the facts constituting the crime, and this Court has permitted it and thus the subject of the trial has changed, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's ground for appeal against the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, despite the above ground for ex officio reversal.

B. (1) On April 9, 2010, the Defendant of this part of the facts charged as stated in the lower judgment’s criminal facts as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article, which was revised, placed the complainant under the multiple power led by the Defendant C over both days and the day of July 10, 200 and November, 209, and threatened the complainant to the office office for five hours, thereby making a written consent to resign from office.