The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant misunderstanding the facts by citing a computer and citing the victim’s desire, and there is no fact by citing a shotra.

B. misunderstanding the legal principles on the interpretation of “in bad faith notice” does not constitute a threat of harm and injury to the extent that the other party could feel a sense of fear in reality because the Defendant’s speech is merely an expression of a simple emotional humiliation or temporary labor.

(c)

Political Defense Defendant engaged in the same act as the facts charged in this case

Even if recognized, the defendant's act is not illegal as a legitimate defense to protect the legitimate legal interests of the defendant by setting up against D's unlawful business obstruction.

(d)

A prosecutor who has abused the power to institute a public prosecution filed a public prosecution on the same suspicion of intimidation as the facts charged in the instant case where the ownership of a computer, which is a property subject to an investigation, was revealed to have been due to a special robbery or a suspicion of special conflict, and the prosecution by a prosecutor constitutes abuse of the power to institute a public prosecution.

E. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service of 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

In the first instance, the prosecutor applied the provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. to “Special Intimidation,” and applied the provisions of the Act to “Article 3(1) and Article 2(1)1 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act” respectively. Since the Court changed the name of the facts charged of this case to “Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016)”, the prosecutor applied the provisions of the Act to “application for amendments to the indictment of this case to “Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act,” the charges of this case cannot be maintained any longer.

However, the defendant's person who has the above reasons for reversal.