The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

A. The court below convicted the Defendant of the violation of Article 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 350 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the above two provisions") with regard to habitual intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case. However, without any special aggravated description of the elements, the provisions in the instant case stipulate the same elements as habitual intimidation under Articles 351 and 350 of the Criminal Act without any special aggravated description, and adjusts only the statutory punishment to the extent of the above statutory punishment to ensure human dignity and value, thereby violating the basic principles of the Constitution guaranteeing human dignity and value, and also, in the contents of the law, the penal provision unconstitutional against the principle of equality can be imposed. The court affirmed the law ex officio without being bound by the applicable provisions of law in the indictment to the extent consistent with the facts charged, on the grounds that the provisions in the instant case are not a crime of habitual violence and a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences Act (hereinafter referred to as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences Act) in the indictment.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

In the written indictment, the applicable provisions of Acts shall be stated in order to assist the determination of the scope of the public prosecution by clarifying the legal evaluation of the facts charged (Article 254(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act), and in the case where there is a clerical error or omission in the entry of applicable provisions of Acts, or the elements constituting the applicable provisions of Acts are not satisfied, the court may apply different provisions of the written indictment ex officio without going through the procedures for modification of the written indictment to the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's defense, but Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1232 Decided June 28, 1996; 9Do1232 Decided April 14, 2006.