The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The crime of intimidation No. 1 and No. 2 of the crime list No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and No. 2 of the judgment.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In other words, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation and by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the Defendant’s Nowon-North Korea (Evidence No. 2) by misapprehending the legal doctrine on confiscation, which was used by the Defendant for business purposes, and which was not provided for the instant criminal act.

2) The sentence of the court below which is unfair in sentencing (as to the crime of intimidation No. 1 and No. 2 of the crime list No. 1 of the judgment below and the crime of assault No. 2 of the judgment below, the imprisonment of two months, the crime of intimidation No. 3 through No. 8 of the crime list No. 1 of the judgment, and the crime of intimidation No. 3 through No. 6 of the judgment below, the imprisonment of one year and six months, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for forty hours, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In light of the legislative purport and characteristics of the order to disclose and notify personal information by misunderstanding the legal principles regarding exemption from disclosure and notification of personal information of this case, the Defendant’s disclosure and notification of personal information of the victim’s own video of the victim who used the victim’s special injury, intimidation, or assault of this case should not disclose and notify the victim’s personal information, and there is no special circumstance that the Defendant should not disclose and notify the victim’s personal information, and even if the need to prevent a sex crime is greater than the disadvantage the Defendant would incur due to the order to disclose and notify personal information, the lower court exempted the Defendant from disclosure and notification of personal information of

2) The above sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. On April 12, 2018, the judgment of the court below on the ground of ex officio appeal, and according to the records of this case, the defendant, at the Seoul Central District Court, found on April 12, 2018, that "the defendant, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on at least two occasions, once again driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on March 22, 2017" was sentenced to imprisonment for one month, suspension of execution two years, and 80 hours for a violation of road traffic law, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 27, 2018, and the list of crimes set forth in Article 1 of the judgment of this case.