폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, the Defendant, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, did not threaten the victim D with a knife, which is a dangerous object, such as the instant case of Busan District Court 2014 High Order 9328 (hereinafter “instant case”) (hereinafter “instant 1 denial part”), or threaten the victim D with a kitchen, which is a dangerous object, such as the instant case of the Busan District Court 2015 High Order 2303 (hereinafter “instant case”), and did not threaten the victim D with a knife, which is a dangerous object, such as the instant case of the Busan District Court 2014 High Order 9328 (hereinafter “instant case”), the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant convicted all of the denying parts of the instant 1 and 2, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, namely, ① the victim D, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, consistently stated to the effect that it conforms to the part of 1, 2 denied portion, and ② the Defendant did not appear in the prosecutor’s office as to the kitchen, which was used in the part of 1 denied portion.
Therefore, the defendant, who was placed adjacent to the rooftop water tank, tried to open the entrance and exit door, and the victim was found and the defendant was resisted about why the above victim failed to use the entrance (the 80th page of the evidence of the first case). ③ On the other hand, the defendant stated with respect to the second denied part as follows: "No less than once the owner (victim D) was found at the police, and no more than once the police was reported as a monthly problem (the 44th page of the evidence of the second case)." However, in the prosecution, the defendant cited the victim D while leaving the victim D.