The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 피고인은 공소사실 기재와 같이 피해자에게 ‘ 미친년. 썅 년. 개 같은

(a) An seal stamped; and

I will be able to make up for tax revenue and expenditure.

Doz. Doz. Doz. to perform funeral services, such as singing rooms

“Neither did the phrase “,” nor did the phrase “as above;

It can not be said that it is a threat of harm required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the records of ex officio determination, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for intimidation at the Daejeon District Court on April 6, 2017 and 2 years of suspended sentence on April 14, 2017 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 14, 2017. On September 28, 2017, the Daejeon District Court sentenced the Defendant to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for injury, etc., and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 22, 2017, and the Defendant committed the instant crime that the lower court convicted prior to the final and conclusive judgment.

As above, each of the crimes for which judgment became final and the instant crimes are concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the punishment should be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and equity in cases where judgment is rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which did not consider it is impossible to maintain it as it is.

However, there is reason to reverse ex officio as above.

Even if the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, it will be examined below.

3. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. First, as to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no statement as stated in the facts charged that the Defendant did not state the victim’s statement, the lower court also asserted the same as above, and the lower court determined the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment under the title “determination of the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment.