A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Sicker's disease (No. 1), knife's kn't.

A. The Defendant (1) did not intimidation the Victim KK in the judgment of the first instance court, and the Defendant merely did the police officer’s attempt to deprive the Defendant of the shouldered soldiers cited by the Defendant without any justifiable reason, and there was no fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the police officer in the lawful process of performing his duties by exposing the shouldered soldiers to the police officer.

In addition, the defendant's act of keeping the defendant in a weak way while driving does not constitute a threat of harm and injury that may cause the victim K to feel a fear.

(2) At the time of committing the crime of the first instance judgment with mental and physical disorder, the Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness by drinking alcohol.

(3) Each sentence (three years of imprisonment, four months of imprisonment) that the lower court sentenced against the Defendant is unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below of the second instance against the defendant (4 months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with the content that “the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.)” among the names of the crimes of Article 1 of the Defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance as “special intimidation” and “Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 283 of the Criminal Act” in the applicable law, “Article 284 and Article 283 of the Criminal Act” was changed by the court of first instance, and the subject of the judgment was changed by the court of first instance.

In addition, with respect to all of the judgment below, the defendant appealed against the judgment below of the second instance, and this court decided to consolidate each appeal case, and each of the offenses in the judgment against the defendant is concurrent offenses as provided in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment shall be determined as a single sentence within the term of punishment for which concurrent offenses are aggravated in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

(b).