The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of two years and six months, and a short term of two years.

40 hours per the defendant.

1. The lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable on the grounds of appeal.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant by applying Article 324 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply), Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and Article 30 of the former Criminal Act, as to the act that the Defendant conspired with C and D to cause the Victim F to perform an act that is not obligated to do so.

Article 324 of the former Criminal Act provides that “Any person who interferes with another’s exercise of rights by violence or intimidation or who causes another person to do an unobligatory act shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years.” However, Article 324(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016 and enforced the same day) which was enforced before the judgment of the court below was rendered was added to statutory penalty by stipulating that “a person who interferes with another’s exercise of rights or causes another person to do an unobligatory act by violence or intimidation shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding

This seems to be an anti-sexual measure from the fact that the previous measure, which had a variety of forms and motives of coercion, to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, is excessive. Thus, Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act constitutes “when the punishment is more severe than the previous one due to the amendment of the law after the crime.”

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case, the defendant's act of causing the victim F to perform an act of intimidation in collusion with C and D cannot be punished under Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act, and can only be punished under Article 324 (1) of the former Criminal Act, which is a new corporation, pursuant to Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below that applied Article 324 of the former Criminal Act cannot be maintained any more. This part of the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime under Article 37 (1) of the Criminal Act in relation to the remaining facts charged and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.