The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is not a dangerous object that could have been led by a misunderstanding of legal principles and a mistake of fact.

In addition, the defendant did not think of intimidation, and the defendant's act does not constitute intimidation.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of probation, one year of protection observation, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for amendment to an indictment with regard to the name of the instant crime as “special intimidation” in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and the relevant applicable law as “Articles 3(1), 2(1)1, and 283(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” in “Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act”. Since the instant case was subject to adjudication by this court’s permission, the judgment below was no longer maintained in this respect.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that a certain object of the determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and factual mistake constitutes “hazardous object” depending on whether the other party or the third party would have caused the danger by using the object in light of the social common sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Do1046, Jul. 28, 1981). In light of the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

In addition, in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is also justifiable. Thus, the defendant's misapprehension of the above legal principles and the assertion of

4.