The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

The judgment of the court below.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the point of special injury among the convictions) Defendant A, although Defendant A sled fish, there was no fact that Defendant A attempted to do so in order to set the victim L with the salted fish, or to do so as to do so as to do so as to do so.

B) The salted salted salted by Defendant A does not constitute a dangerous object that could feel a risk to another person’s life or body because the inside of the salted salted salted fish is influent, and thus does not constitute a dangerous object that could feel a risk to another person’s life or body.

C) According to the court below’s statement of the victim L, the injury suffered by the victim L is not caused by Defendant A’s act of Defendant A, or even after the salted fish did not result from the act of Defendant A. Thus, Defendant A, carrying a salted fish, thereby inflicting an injury on the victim L by carrying it.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part)’s statement to the investigation agency of the victim M, the Defendants jointly do so to the victim M.

It is sufficient to say that there has been a threat of harm and injury in the crime of intimidation and that it would cause harm and injury to the other party through speech or behavior even if there is no explicit method. Thus, the victim M is given a threat of harm and injury that the Defendants may indirectly interfere with the request for protection of the Defendants by taking advantage of their status and not supply opics indirectly through a third party entertainment association if the Defendants do not comply with the request.

However, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged to the Defendants. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding facts.

2) The sentence against Defendant A, which is unfair in sentencing, is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A's.