The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Of the facts charged of this case, each of the intimidation is examined.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not possess a knife with a knife (in relation to special intimidation and each intimidation).

In addition, although one victim has expressed a desire to do so, he did not speak and act that seems to cause danger.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. A. Around 16:00 on May 8, 2017, the summary of the charges against each intimidation, the Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “at the fifth fifth floor parking lot under the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building, i.e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., e.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim.

2) On May 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on the ground that from the 6th emergency stairs underground of the above building around 09:0 on May 15, 2017, the victim shouldered the victim D’s diving, the Defendant “scoppule,” and the person, at the same time, shall knife knife knife k

“In doing so, I tried to display the victim’s face several times to the victim’s face, and see the attitude of doing harm to the victim’s body.”

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim.

B. This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 283(3) of the same Act.

In such a case, on October 20, 2017, prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, the victim D was present at the court of the lower court as a witness and expressed his/her intent that he/she does not want to be punished. Therefore, this part of the public prosecution should be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of non-compliance.

3. Conclusion.