The judgment below

The acquittal portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of special intimidation is acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim H’s statement, etc., the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, although it could be acknowledged that the Defendant had threatened the victim by acting as a dangerous object, and thus, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. Improper sentencing (In the judgment of the court below, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) that the court below sentenced the defendant (the penalty amount of KRW 15 million) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio (the judgment on the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below), the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal, and the prosecutor applied the "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.)" among the names of the crimes in the trial of the party as "special intimidation", and the applicable provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. are as follows: "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act"; and since this court changed the scope of the judgment by permitting this, the part of acquittal in the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of the above facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant introduced E from G restaurant located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon around 06:00 on February 16, 2015 to the victim H (37 years of age) who first introduced E from G restaurant to the Defendant, and “I am, Chewing, Chewing, cut off. E, E, algohy, and algohy, salgohy,” and the victim seems to be the victim’s head as his hand, which is a dangerous thing that the victim intends to go out of the place.