All judgment of the court below is reversed.

Attached No. 1, No. 1 through 7, a year of crime sight, in the judgment of the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal - The punishment of the court of first instance (one year of imprisonment) and the punishment of the court of second instance (six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes listed in subparagraphs 1 through 7 of the annual list of crimes listed in the annexed Table No. 1 of the original judgment, and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes listed in Articles 8 through 14 of the annual list of crimes listed in the annexed Table No. 1 of the original judgment) are too

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for ex officio judgment.

A. An ex officio determination of the number of crimes concerning intimidation of the purpose of cancelling complaint as stated in the judgment of the court below as to the second instance shall continue to conduct several acts or acts falling under the same name of the same crime for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal interests of the damages are the same, each act shall be punished as a single comprehensive crime in total

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) was committed on nine occasions from April 21, 2014 to July 14, 2014 when the Defendant was detained for the purpose of retaliation, and the Defendant’s crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) was committed on nine occasions as indicated in the attached Table 2 of the lower court’s holding that the Defendant threatened the victim of harm to the life, body, etc. of the victim as stated in the victim list of crimes in the judgment of the lower court. According to this, the Defendant repeated the same type of act under a single and continuous criminal intent, as well as even as is equivalent to the legal interest on the damage. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s crime constitutes a single comprehensive crime.

Nevertheless, the second instance court held that each act of sending a letter to the victim constitutes separate crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) for each act of sending it to the victim.