The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

However, the period of five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (limited to three years of imprisonment, five years of suspension of execution, three years of observation of protection, and 40 hours of lectures to treat sexual assault) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

Judgment ex officio

가. 이 사건 각 협박의 공소사실 요지 피고인은 2018. 1. 5. 14:36 경 서울 은평구 G에 있는 피고인의 집에서 “ ㅋㅋ 근데 생각해 보니까 닌 그 영상을 찍어 놓고 태평하다.

I think how I would like to Chewing contact;

By March 10, 2018, “,” sent the H message and threatened the victim with a total of 11 times, as indicated in the list of offenses, including intimidation as if he/she were to spread sexually related images.

B. The above facts charged cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent pursuant to Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act, as a crime falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records, including the victim D, the victim’s parentsO, the non-application for a written agreement and punishment prepared by P, and the written application for a written punishment (the trial record 131,132 pages), the victim D and the parent who is a person with parental authority may recognize the fact that the victim D and the parent who is the person with parental authority have withdrawn the Defendant’s wishing to punish the Defendant through the Defendant’s side on May 29, 2018, prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment after prosecution.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the prosecution against intimidation should be dismissed.

However, the court below erred by misapprehending the law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety, since there are grounds for reversal ex officio as seen above, and the part that dismissed the prosecution as above and each of the remaining crimes as stated in the judgment of the court below are treated as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence is sentenced.

Therefore, Article 364, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the prosecutor's improper argument of sentencing.