The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (the attempted charge of extortion) was connected to the SNS Social Network E E, and the Defendant posted the same article on his own account as that indicated in the facts charged regarding the attempted attempts of the instant public accusation, and did not transmit the victim’s SNS C account with the message of the same contents as the above article.

In addition, the Defendant’s posting of the above writing was not for the purpose of raising money from the victim, but for the purpose of having the victim report the above writing and contact the Defendant, so it cannot be said that the Defendant had a criminal intent to attack.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant had threatened the victim by opening the SNS C account of the victim for the purpose of collecting money from the victim and transmitting the same contents of the above article to the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (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 for ex officio judgment.

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the indictment with respect to the facts charged as stated below, and the subject of the trial was changed by this court's permission.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below which was unable to be maintained as it is, and since the above crime of the defendant and the remaining crime of the court below as stated in the judgment of the court below are regarded as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the above argument of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the facts charged regarding the attempted compromise of this case are as follows.