The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.), the lower court rendered a judgment dismissing all the charges against which only the victim’s expression of intent not to punish him/her against his/her will, on the ground that the victim’s expression of intent not to punish him/herself or another person’s criminal investigation or trial has been made after the prosecution of this case.

Therefore, the prosecutor filed an appeal against the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, without separately filing an appeal against the simple intimidation which was originally instituted, and eventually, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

2. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles with regard to the gist of the grounds for appeal: The defendant has already failed to find the victim four times or more for about 20 hours immediately before preventing the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. (hereinafter “the instant intimidation”), which is the charge of this part, and each police officer has been dispatched after receiving a report, and accordingly, he was arrested as an offender in the act of committing a crime and was subject to a penalty. In full view of the Defendant’s speech and behavior, and the relationship with the victim surrounding a claim and obligation, it can be sufficiently inferred that the psychological condition of the Defendant, which was the victim at the time of the instant intimidation, was the objective of retaliation related to his criminal investigation or trial against the victim.

However, the lower court.