The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the facts of the crime No. 1 as indicated in the judgment below, the electronic shock machine used by the Defendant does not constitute a dangerous object prescribed in the special intimidation, and the Defendant did not have launched two times the electronic shock machine against the victim and did not have intention to intimidation.

In addition, in relation to the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, since the defendant feel a threat to his body and uses an electronic shock machine, the use of the electronic shock machine is recognized as a justifiable reason.

Even if the act as stated in the facts charged of the defendant constitutes a special intimidation and a crime of violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, illegality is excluded because the act constitutes a legitimate defense, an emergency evacuation, or a legitimate act.

Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged in this case or by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The facts of each of the instant criminal facts are as follows: (a) the Defendant committed an act that seems to inflict any harm on the victim’s body, such as launching an electronic shock machine, thereby threatening the victim; and (b) used the electronic shock machine without justifiable grounds; and (c) there is a relationship of commercial concurrence as stipulated in Article 40 of the Criminal Act corresponding to several crimes.

It is reasonable to view it.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of the number of crimes in determining the crime of special intimidation and the crime of violating the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. as substantive concurrent relation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.