All the judgment of the first and second court (excluding the dismissed part of the judgment of the first instance) shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1. The first instance court dismissed the prosecution as to the assault against B among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

Since only the defendant appealed against the guilty portion, the dismissal of prosecution in the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive separately.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts (the fact of special intimidation and damage to special property in the judgment of the court below of the second instance) does not constitute either intimidation as to the victim, or intimidation the victim's cargo vehicle by driving the victim's vehicle toward the victim, and there was no fact that the victim's vehicle was damaged by leaving the victim's dog out of the pipe.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (Article 1 and 2) No. 1 and 2 on the defendant (Article 1 and 3 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the court below, and 1 and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the court below) are too unreasonable.

3. This Court decided to hold ex officio the appeals cases of Articles 1 and 2 together with each of the judgment below. Since each of these offenses of the judgment below is a concurrent offense relationship under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single sentence shall be determined within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent offenses in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first and second levels

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of facts.

4. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the determination of mistake of facts, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, threatens the victim as if he were fluor, or threatens the victim’s cargo vehicle to drive the victim’s truck toward the victim, and the victim’s body as a pipeline.