The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim C’s consistent statement, the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s excessive use of dangerous articles and the fact of intimidation can be acknowledged.

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

A. The prosecutor applied for changes in the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. in the facts charged in the instant case in exchange for changes in the name of the crime and the applicable provisions of the Act. Since the subject of adjudication was changed by the court's permission, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further.

B. We examine the crime of intimidation against victim E in the judgment below.

The offense of intimidation under Article 283 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Act shall not be prosecuted against the express will of the victim.

According to the agreement submitted to the court below, since victim E expressed his/her intention not to be punished for the defendant after filing the prosecution of this case, it is necessary to dismiss this part of the indictment in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below which found the guilty of this part of the facts charged is illegal in this respect.

However, the prosecutor's allegation of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles, which are the grounds for appeal, is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. On the grounds of appeal, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that: (a) as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective deadly weapon, etc.), among the facts charged in the instant case, the evidence that seems to correspond thereto is difficult to believe that C’s statement is the only statement, as is indicated in the

In light of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the first written statement prepared by C on September 29, 2014 after the instant case, there was no statement that the Defendant cited excessive amount.