The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, the cash that the defendant received from the injured party was borrowed from the injured party on the basis of a pro-friendly relationship with the injured party, and thus, it does not mean that the injured party received property or acquired property benefits through the threat of the injured party.

2) In relation to the facts constituting the crime of Paragraph 2 of the judgment below as stated in the judgment below, the defendant recognized the fact that the defendant was a victim with a single broom unit, but since the single broom unit does not constitute dangerous goods, it cannot be deemed that the defendant was injured by carrying dangerous goods.

(A) At the first trial date, the Defendant explicitly withdrawn the name of the crime and the grounds for appeal against the applicable statutory provisions in accordance with the prosecutor’s indictment following changes in the indictment.)

B. A prosecutor 1) Although the written statement statement and statement statement statement on the victim F prepared by the police officer of the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty part of the primary facts charged) are admissible in accordance with Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court below did not recognize the admissibility of evidence.

According to each of the above statements, in relation to the main facts charged as to the attack, the court below found that "the defendant was guilty of the primary facts charged as to "the defendant's gambling with the victim's gambling amounting to three million won or more" and the violation of the Punishment of Violences Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) with respect to the main facts charged, "the defendant's head was 3 times in the part of the victim's head at the face of her face." The court below rejected all of the admissibility of evidence of each of the above statements and acquitted the victim of the primary facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s punishment (the part of conviction against the conjunctive charges) (the imprisonment of two years, the suspension of execution of four years, the observation of protection, and the community service order of welfare facilities for the disabled).