The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The victim's statement consistent with the facts charged in this case is not consistent, it is against the objective circumstance or rule of experience, there is no data supporting the victim's statement, and there is a possibility that the defendant made a false statement due to decentralization and misunderstanding, so the credibility of the statement is low.

On the other hand, the defendant's statements are consistent and disadvantageous to himself/herself, and their credibility is high, and the prosecutor's office and the court below's court's statement also have high credibility in the victim's own self-reliance as the victim's own opinions.

In addition, the statements of S and P among the members of the JJ are low credibility, while U's statements are high credibility.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant’s statements with high credibility, D’s statements in the prosecutor’s office and court of the lower court, U’s U’s statements in U’s original court without reasonable grounds, and by adopting D’s police statements, written statements, written statements, Nos, and S and P’s statements made by the victim, etc. and forced the victim, etc. to have credibility as evidence.

Whether the crime of habitual special injury, coercion, and attempted coercion is established or not, ① on January 8, 2016, GGGra H of GGra Ga, and ② When the victim’s end-of-the-life was poppy at L office on January 14, 2017 (related to paragraph 1-g of the judgment of the original court), ② on February 10, 2017, the victim’s end-of-life was committed with plastic sealing (related to paragraph 1-g of the judgment of the original court), ③ on February 10, 2017, at L office, with the victim’s hand floor (related to paragraph 1-h of the judgment of the original court). However, there was no fact that the victim committed assault, injury, or intimidation with dangerous articles habitually as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the original court and did not have any duty to do any act, or attempted to commit any act without any duty to do so.

Nevertheless, the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty.