The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the legal principles and the victim E expressed his intention not to punish the Defendant, and thus, the judgment of dismissal of the prosecution should be rendered, but the lower court convicted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment in violation of the statutes.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal by the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding the legal principles

A. On July 18, 2015, at around 10:37, 2015, the summary of the facts charged as to intimidation: (a) the Defendant demanded the victim E (50 years of age) who was the head of the above company’s establishment team to receive daily wage of KRW 2,900,000 during absence from work while performing daily work from the manufacturer and the manufacturer at the mechanical parking parking type; (b) however, the Defendant demanded the victim E (50 years of age) to provide any answer; (c) on the ground that the victim’s cell phone using the Defendant’s portable phone, “the inside shall have personal care.”

The text message “ was transmitted to threaten the victim.”

B. According to Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act, the facts charged in the instant case are crimes falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent. According to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the expression of intent to punish a case cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent, the public prosecution should be dismissed by judgment.

According to the records, the victim E, after the prosecution of this case was instituted, stated that the victim E does not want to punish the defendant on January 15, 2016, which was before the judgment of the court below was pronounced.