Even if such facts are recognized, the sentencing of the lower court (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The victim of mistake of facts reported the damage to the investigation agency immediately after the instant case, and the statement from that time up to the trial court is consistent.

The contents of the statement concerning the situation at the time include very specific and special circumstances (e.g., the victim described the size, form, and color that the Defendant would know about the gas guns regardless of the gas guns extracted at the time, which is natural as a statement after the Defendant was threatened with the gas guns, and the description is similar to the actual color, size, form, and form of the said gas gun; when the person extracts the guns from the shot gun house of the shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot, and it is difficult for the Defendant to gather the gas guns. The victim stated that the Defendant paid the gas guns in both hands, etc.).

In light of these circumstances, since the statement of the victim can be sufficiently reliable, the fact that the defendant assaulted and threatened the victim is recognized as the facts charged.

B. The crime of this case of unfair sentencing cannot be seen as falling under the case where the defendant threatened the victim by taking the face of the victim on his own, and gas guns. The defendant has the record of receiving a fine three times for the same crime, and the suspension of indictment has been imposed.

In full view of these circumstances and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings, fines shall be imposed.