The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as well as the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts related to the 2015 High 270 Incident and the Defendant’s assertion of mental and physical disorder, lost their gender due to alcohol addiction and mental disorder, and did not constitute an intentional act of retaliation, intimidation, or interference with the performance of official duties against the victims.

B. The lower court’s holding that the Plaintiff was unable to pay the drinking value to the main point of claiming the misunderstanding of the facts related to the 2015 High 305 High Do 2015 case was the money to be received from a third party (S) and thus, intended to pay the drinking value. The detention of the said 2015 High 270 case led to the Defendant’s detention of the said 2015 High 270 case, thereby making it impossible to pay the drinking value due to the Defendant’s failure to receive the money,

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too heavy.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for the above appeal in accordance with the amendment of indictment, prior to the judgment on the grounds for the above appeal, the prosecutor tried to examine ex officio, and in relation to Article 2015 Gohap 305 Gohap 1 of the facts charged, “Intimidation” was added to the name of the crime in relation to Article 283(1) and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and “Article 283(1) and 40 of the Criminal Act” under the applicable law, and thereby, the Defendant threatened the victims for retaliation in relation to the investigation and trial of his criminal case.

“ By doing so, the Defendant threatened the victim H and, at the same time, threatened the victim D and F with the purpose of retaliation in relation to the investigation and trial of his criminal case.

“Request for Amendments to Bill of Indictment” was made, and this Court permitted this, which is subject to the adjudication on that part. Accordingly, there is a concurrent relation between the above and the remaining crimes as stated in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In light of the foregoing, the entire judgment of the lower court that rendered a single sentence was no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's mistake and mental and physical disorder are still subject to the judgment of this court, and the following is below.