The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실 오인 및 법리 오해( 특수 협박 범행 관련) 특수 협박 범행과 관련하여 피고인은 피해자 F의 언어적 도발에 화가 나서 나무 재질의 어린이용 약식 야구 방망이를 들어 차량 앞 유리를 깨는 시늉을 하였을 뿐이지 위 피해자에게 해악을 고지하려는 의사가 없었으므로 이를 협박이라 단정할 수 없다.

In addition, it cannot be viewed as a "hazardous object" of a child's pharmacological view, and the defendant carried this.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On June 22, 2014, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Criminal Act to "Special Intimidation" from "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" to "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act," and "Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act," respectively, was amended to "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act."

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the criminal facts whose name and applicable legal provisions were modified and the remaining facts charged constituting substantive concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced to a single punishment could not be maintained as they are.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.