The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court should have dismissed the prosecution of intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, since the Defendant agreed with the victim prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, and the victim expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

A. On July 28, 2017, the Defendant, at around 18:05 on July 28, 2017, conspired with the Defendant in an apartment building located in Namyang-si.

In front of the fact that the victim B (the age of 23) is not the victim's place of residence, the victim was dissatisfied with the complaint that the victim B (the age of 23) was not the victim, and the cremation site was taken by attaching a fire to the cremation site in front of the entrance, and then the crepit cremation site was laid away in front of the entrance, and then the victim threatened the victim as if the victim's life or body was harmed by the victim, while the victim was in his surroundings.

B. This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the defendant agreed with the victim on April 23, 2019 and submitted to the court a written agreement (written application for no punishment) stating that "any citizen or criminal punishment against the defendant is sought" on April 30, 2018, which was prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below should have dismissed the prosecution against this part of the facts charged by judgment pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by applying Article 327 Subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, it is true.