The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the reasons for appeal is unfair because the sentence of one year and six months, and the sentence of three years under the suspended execution, which is too unhued.

2. We examine ex officio prior to determining the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio.

In the first instance trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. as "special intimidation" among the names of the crimes of this case. "Articles 3 (1), 2 (1) 1, and 283 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable law to "Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" respectively. The court permitted the amendment of the Act and thereby changed the subject of the judgment of the court below as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) among the judgment below.

In addition, the lower court applied Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act to the crime under Article 2(2) of the judgment below, and deleted the part of Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which provide that as the Act was promulgated and enforced by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, a person who committed an injury by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years for a person who committed an injury by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles, as the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. was enacted and enforced by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016, which is deemed to have been punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than three years. Thus, the above provision is deemed to have been amended based on a reflective consideration that the previous sentencing was excessive, and thus, the Act on the above facts charged should be applied.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) and the intimidation are committed.