1. The judgment of the court below as to Defendant A

(a) (2), 1-b), 3-2

(c)each of the crimes in paragraphs (2) and (3).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant A (two months of imprisonment, eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to Defendant B1’s intimidation against X and AC among the facts charged against the Defendant by misapprehending the legal principles, since the above victims expressed their intention not to punish the Defendant at the lower court, the judgment dismissing the prosecution against each of the above intimidation should be rendered. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, without rendering a judgment dismissing the prosecution against this part.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two months of imprisonment, one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendants ( ① two months of imprisonment: 2 months of imprisonment; 2 months of imprisonment; 2 months of imprisonment; 1 year of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the facts charged against Defendant A

A. (2) The date and time of the crime referred to in subparagraph (2) was “In the lower order of April 2015” to “ around April 30, 2015,” and the court applied for amendments to a bill of amendment that changed the date and time of the crime to “ around April 30, 2015,” which was permitted by this court and changed to the subject of the judgment, and No.

C. (2) Each of the crimes listed in subparagraphs (3) and (3) shall be sentenced to a single sentence in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning each of the above crimes cannot be maintained any more (i.e., the judgment of the defendant and the prosecutor's wrongful determination of the sentencing on this part. 2)

(a)(1), 3-a.b.

C. (1) It is recognized that there is a need to consider equity with the case where the defendant received a judgment at the same time as the crime recorded in the record of the crime in the judgment of the court below, which is one of the concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and that the defendant agreed with the victims in the judgment of the court below to determine the unfair argument of sentencing

However, the defendant.