The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

One kitchen which has been seized (No. 1).

1. The sentencing of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unlimited and unfair.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s improper argument in sentencing.

The prosecutor applied the provision of the law to the effect that the name of the defendant's crime is "special heavy confinement" in the trial of the party, and applied the law to "Article 278, 277 (1), 37, 38, and 48 (1) of the Criminal Act," respectively, applied the 10th of the facts charged, and applied for the amendment of the bill of amendment to the indictment with the content that "componment at the same time" is "comonment." Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's improper assertion of sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the following is again decided after pleading.

Criminal facts

The substance of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence acknowledged by this court are as shown in each corresponding column, except for the alteration of the crime No. 10 of the lower judgment’s “at the same time as the confinement,” and as indicated in each corresponding column. Therefore, they are cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 278 and 277 (1) of the Criminal Act relating to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act include: (a) the recognition of and reflects on the instant crime; (b) the self-denunciation of the Defendant; and (c) the victims and the victims do not want the punishment against the Defendant, etc., are circumstances that may be considered in the instant sentencing.

However, the crime of this case was committed by threatening the victims of knife, which is a dangerous object by which the defendant could kill a person, and assault or harshly injure the victims in the process.