The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Nos. 1 to 6 of seized evidence C.

The reasons for appeal submitted by the defendant are also stated as reasons for appeal, but the defendant and his defense counsel have arranged only unfair reasons for appeal at the first trial date of the trial.

The defendant asserts that the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable because the defendant is too large, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfied and unfair.

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the crime of intimidation is a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and the crime of intimidation is not prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records, the victim H submitted the written application to the court of the lower court on May 22, 2017, which was prior to the decision of the lower court by the Defendant’s national defense counsel, “(the Defendant) in depth.”

to prevent such action from being committed, and to prevent such action from being committed;

Hayman, I accept only once.

In addition, (the defendant) many of the defendants are divided, and it is unfolded upon the request of the prior wife.

Since it is recognized that the above victim submitted a written application for coal (the trial record 233 pages) stating "," it is reasonable to view that the above victim explicitly expresses his intention not to punish the defendant by submitting the above written application for coal.

Nevertheless, the court below did not dismiss a public prosecution as to intimidation and found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to concurrent crimes with the remaining crimes. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of non-violation of intention, or by misunderstanding facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the whole judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio. Thus, Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor.