The judgment below

The remainder, excluding the dismissed part among the public prosecution, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charge of intimidation, as to the charge of special larceny, and convicted the Defendant of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion), violation of the Act on Promotion of the Use of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, Etc. (Defamation), defamation, defamation, and housing intrusion.

The “Scope of appeal” column of the Prosecutor’s petition of appeal states that “the entire scope of appeal” is “the entirety,” but so long as the reason for the Prosecutor’s appeal is obvious to be erroneous and unreasonable in sentencing on the part of innocence and guilty portion, even if the Prosecutor’s appeal is accepted, the result does not affect the dismissal portion of the above public prosecution among the judgment below. Thus, the dismissal portion is excluded from the object of adjudication of the above court by being separated

I see that it is.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the above conviction and innocence of the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor regarding the special larceny among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, fully recognized the fact that the Defendant had stolen a photograph owned by the victim C, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. In the trial of the public prosecutor, with regard to the charge of special larceny among the facts charged in the instant case, the public prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to delete the following “F” portion of the facts charged, and since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

B. Article 70(1) of the former Act on Promotion of Use of Information and Communications Network and Information Protection, Etc. (hereinafter “former Act”).