The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below of the second instance is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the statements in the lower court’s judgment No. 1 and No. 2, the part concerning the victim’s statement among the statements in the AS and AO’s investigative agency and court of the lower court constitutes a professional statement with the content of another person’s statement or documents in which another person’s statement is written, and thus, the admissibility of evidence can be acknowledged if the requirements under Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act are met.

However, in this case, as long as a person who is a prime licensee and directly attends the court of original trial and makes a statement in the court of original trial, the above investigation agency of AS and AO and the statement in the court of original instance

In addition, the police statement of Korea's AT is not admissible because it is not an examination of the witness of the AT as evidence with consent.

Nevertheless, the first instance court considered the AS, AO's legal statements, and AT's police statements as evidence of guilt, which have no admissibility of evidence.

B) The Defendant, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, did not assault or threaten the victim on January 201, 201, as stated in the facts charged.

2) Of the facts constituting the crime of attacked during the second instance judgment (No. 2, 3, and 6 of the crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below), the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules of reinforcement of confession, which found the defendant guilty on this part of the charges, in relation to No. 1, 3, and 5 of the crimes set forth in the list of crimes set forth in the judgment of the court below No. 2, which were set forth in the second instance judgment. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the rules of reinforcement of confession, which found the defendant guilty

B) In fact, the Defendant did not threaten to the employees of the Kimcheon-si Public Health Center (BO department) L or Kimcheon-si (BP department affiliated with the BP department) as stated in the judgment of the second instance in relation to the contract for the production of promotional materials, and there was no threat as stated in the attached list 13 through 6 in the crime list of crimes in the judgment of the second instance, and the act of requesting the disclosure of information itself does not constitute a attack

In addition, the above L is affiliated with BO, and the above M is affiliated with BP, and it is in B Q division.