The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal (the factual error) did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case on the grounds of the statement of the victims whose credibility is not reliable, although the Defendant, like as described in the facts charged, was frighting to the victim D and threatened the victim E with spoke.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

A prosecutor shall not maintain the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the name of the crime was "special assault and special intimidation", and the applicable provisions of Acts are applied for changes in accordance with Articles 261, 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act "each changes have been applied for changes, and the subject of the trial has changed by this court's permission."

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, even though there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. In order to reverse the judgment of the court below that recognized the credibility of each of the statements by the victims, which are evidence supporting the facts charged in the instant case, should be sufficient and reasonable to accept the judgment of the court below. However, even considering the circumstances required for the allegation in the grounds of appeal, it cannot be seen as a circumstance to the extent that the judgment of the court below is not acceptable, such as most of the circumstances already pointed out in the process of the trial of the court below and considered in the process of the judgment of the court below.

In other words, each victim's statement is consistent with the investigation agency to the court of the original trial, specific, and the defendant put in time between the victims and the victims at the F cafeteria operated by the victims.