The judgment of the court of first instance except for compensation order and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment.

As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) among the facts charged in the instant case, the court below found the Defendant not guilty in the grounds of the judgment on the ground that the Defendant could not be deemed to have committed any abusive act by mentioning the fact that the Defendant reported to the victim at the time of the act of intimidation, and found the Defendant guilty of

Therefore, only the Defendant filed an appeal against the guilty portion, and the Prosecutor did not file an appeal. As such, the part of the judgment of the first instance, which was found not guilty, was judged in the first instance trial along with the remaining convictions in the relationship of a single crime, but was exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance court as to the acquittal portion of reasons is not followed,

Therefore, this Court does not re-examine and decide the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court of first instance and only determines the conviction portion.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

On December 16, 2012, there was a misunderstanding of the fact that the mail of the victim, which was posted by the victim on December 16, 2012, is far away from the floor, and there was no warning that the victim's brusing of waste was fluored, and there was no warning that the victim's brusing of waste was fluored or threatened, and even after the police officer returned to the police officer, there was no threat of harm and injury.

On December 21, 2012, there was no threat of harm that the defendant made verbal abuse to the victim.

On January 3, 2013, there was no intention of intimidation because it was merely a result of appeal or appeal against the victim by the defendant, and there was no intention of intimidation.

On January 22, 2013, there is no threat of the victim's mind that the defendant's threat with a deadly weapon is not likely to prejudice the victim's agreement.

January 2013