All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Regarding the summary of the grounds for appeal No. 1, the Defendant only told the victim, and there was no threat, and the Defendant requested the installation of electric circuit to distinguish the electric use of common areas E in relation to the judgment of the second instance, and there was no theft of electric power by installing a electric circuit.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the first and the second judgment are in a concurrent relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to each of the crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Since the court of the first and the second judgment together reviewed each of the cases of the judgment below and selected the same type of punishment for each of the crimes, it is necessary to render a single sentence pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act with regard to each of the above crimes. In this regard, the first and the second judgment

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Regarding the judgment of the court of first instance on the assertion of mistake of facts, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, the victim has consistently expressed from the defendant to the court of the court below that "the victim may die in the same year and ear." The victim at the time of committing the crime of this case also made a statement consistent with the victim's statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court of the court below, and the R, which appears to have a neutral position between the defendant and the victim, also made the statement to the above purport at the court of the court of first instance. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion can be sufficiently recognized, since it is acknowledged that the defendant has threatened the victim, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance.