The part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed in entirety.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

1. The first instance court dismissed the prosecution regarding intimidation among the facts charged, and sentenced the remainder of the facts charged, which the prosecutor and the defendant appealed on the ground that the sentencing was unfair only for the aforementioned guilty part.

Therefore, since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the public prosecution for which the prosecutor and the defendant did not appeal is separated and confirmed as it is, it is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance belongs

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principle that it is reasonable to deem that the crime of habitual assault and the crime of habitual assault are established in the case where a person with the above damp wall commits several types of crimes listed in the above provision, the crime of habitual assault and the crime of habitual assault are the most severe, even though the crime of habitual assault is established in the defendant, the crime of habitual assault and the crime of habitual assault are established in the judgment of the court below that recognized concurrent crimes of habitual assault and the crime of habitual assault.

B) Even if the judgment of the court below recognized concurrent crimes as concurrent crimes, according to the victim D’s statement, it can be recognized that the defendant used assaulting the victim D over several times, and the crime of habitual assaulting the victim D is recognized. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) As to the remaining assault by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the guilty portion (the second instance judgment), since the victim D expressed his intention not to punish the Defendant, the lower court did not render a judgment dismissing the public prosecution on the remaining assault. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

3) Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 4 months, and the second instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months) is too unhued and unfair.