The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine months.

One kitchen (No. 1) which has been seized, shall be a kitchen.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio the decision on the grounds of appeal for ex officio determination as to intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case.

The crime of intimidation shall not be prosecuted against the express will of the victim in accordance with Article 283 (3) of the Criminal Act, as an offense provided for in paragraph (1) of the same Article.

However, according to the records, on August 13, 2020, prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, the victim D submitted a written agreement to the effect that "I will not raise any objection against the next citizen or criminal law. I will agree with the defendant. I will am prior to the defendant (the 25th page of the trial record)," and the victim D again on September 11, 2020, submitted a written application stating that "I will not be punished against the defendant, and if I will have come to a normal life with the defendant going to society (the 38th page of the trial record)."

Since the victim had withdrawn his wish to punish the defendant before the judgment of the court below was rendered, the court below should have dismissed the prosecution in accordance with Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the act of intimidation among the facts charged in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of intimidation with excessive consideration. The part of the court below's decision on the violation of intimidation should be reversed.

However, the point of intimidation and the remaining guilty part are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the court below sentenced one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the ground of the above ex officio reversal, and the judgment below is again decided as follows.

[Discied Reasons for the judgment] The crime history;

1. The Defendant who sustained an injury on December 2019.