The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for seven months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, intimidation on October 27, 2019.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant and the prosecutor asserts that the Defendant and the prosecutor both of the instant charges, which were intimidation around October 27, 2019, submitted a written agreement with the victim’s intention not to punish the victim prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, should be dismissed.

B. As to the punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment), the Defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable for the Defendant to go too much so, and that the prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

2. The crime of intimidation under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, which is determined as to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles by the defendant and the prosecutor, cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act. The expression of intent not to punish may be made before the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court in accordance with Article 232(1) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the records, the victim D’s act of intimidation around October 27, 2019 among the facts charged in the instant case expressed his/her intent not to have the Defendant punished by submitting a written agreement (i.e., the written agreement signed by his/her defense counsel on December 8, 2019, attached to his/her defense counsel’s written opinion on December 12, 2019) to the lower court prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment after institution of a prosecution. As such, the charge of intimidation ought to be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and sentenced to a single punishment by dealing with the remaining crimes of fraud and concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the lower judgment cannot be maintained any more. The Defendant and the Prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out

3. As the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the unfair argument of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and the following is again decided after pleading.

[Re-written judgment] Summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by the court, the summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence is in the room of the judgment below.