The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable as the Defendant (an unreasonable sentencing on the part of the charge) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion and misunderstanding of legal principles), according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the Defendant made a statement of intimidation, such as the entries in this part of the facts charged, may be acknowledged. The victim D’s statement of the lower court to support this is credibility, and even if the Defendant did not make such statement, the Defendant’s act of making a statement of the victim’s residence door to a view, which is a dangerous article, constitutes intimidation, thereby making the victim feel fear by itself.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this portion is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The prosecutor amended the indictment, which led to the trial of the court below, maintained the previous facts charged in the indictment as the primary facts charged, and applied for the amendment of the indictment with the content of adding Paragraph 1 of the ancillary facts charged as follows, and this court permitted the amendment.

[Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act]

1. Special intimidation, special property damage Defendant: (a) during the period from around 02:40 on December 14, 2015 to around 02:46 on the same day, the victim E-owned by the victim E, who was leased and resided in the above D, and opened the entrance door 202 of the above Cletra 202, which is a dangerous object in front of the above Cletra 202; and (b) damage the lock devices installed in the above fluor so that they can be carried a hole into the above fluor, the victim E-owned; and (c) damage the lock devices installed in the above fluor so as to damage the fluor and locking devices by harming the victim D at the time, who was in the above 202, at the time, by doing the same act.