The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court below, did not have committed intimidation against the victim D who is a lineal ascendant or descendant or assaulted the victim C.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

(1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant, around May 1, 2017, at the living room of the victim C, the father of the Defendant, who is the father of the Defendant, who is the father of the Defendant, xxx, in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-si, Seongbuk-si, Seongbuk-si, Sungnam-si, and on the ground that the Defendant’s mother of the Defendant, told the Defendant to the Defendant, who was frightd with D, the Defendant would have to die “the same level of width,” and the Defendant would have to die.

20 years prior to the death of the victim C while putting the victim C over the floor and putting the victim C into the room, and then the victim C does so.

“In doing so, at the same time, the victim C who is a lineal ascendant by asking the victim C’s bad finger hand with his/her son who gets her timber and resisted the victim C, and assaulted the victim C who is a lineal ascendant.

(2) This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Article 260(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. Since the victim C withdraws his/her wish to punish the Defendant on August 16, 2017, which was after the prosecution of this case, it is reasonable to dismiss this part of the indictment pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below erred in the misapprehension of law and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: Provided, however, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the existence of special intimidation in the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court below, and this is related thereto.

The court below is duly admitted and examined by the evidence.