The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. In a case where the evaluation of the past acts committed as a crime has changed depending on the changes in the legal ideology, which served as the reason for the enactment of penal statutes, and the evaluation thereof has been recognized and punished as a crime itself, or where the Acts and subordinate statutes have been amended or amended in light of reflective considerations that the punishment was excessive, the new law shall be applied pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do12930, Mar. 11, 2010; 2013Do4862, Jul. 11, 2013; 2013Do101, Jul. 11, 2013). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court convicted the Defendant by applying Article 324 (Amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter “former Criminal Act”).

3. Article 324 of the former Criminal Act provides that a person who interferes with the exercise of rights by violence or intimidation or makes another person perform an unobligatory act shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years.

“The provision was defined as “...”

Article 324 (1) of the Criminal Code, which was enforced on January 6, 2016 by Act No. 13719, provides that a person who interferes with or makes another person perform an act of interference with the exercise of rights by violence or intimidation shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.

“A fine was added as a statutory penalty by stipulating that it is “.”

The purport of the amendment is as follows: (a) the previous measure, which had to punish a minor coercion even though the form and motive of coercion are diverse, is considered to be an anti-sexual measure taken from the fact that the previous measure had to be punished by imprisonment with prison labor, is excessive; (b) so, constitutes “when a punishment is more serious than that of the former Act due to the revision of the Act after a crime” under Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do550, Mar. 10, 2016). Therefore, among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant threatened the victim to perform an act for which the victim is not obliged.