A. Although there was no fact that the Defendant, as a misunderstanding of the facts, had a threat of the victim’s face to the face, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and erred by mistake.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant had knife and threatened the victim E's face as stated in the facts charged of this case, such as the statement of the victim E, the seized knife and the remaining evidence. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. Although there are no circumstances to consider the fact that the sentencing is unfair, such as the defendant's absence of the same power, and the victim's withdrawal from the victim's loan after this case, the defendant did not recognize his mistake on the ground that the defendant does not have memory to the depth of the party, and did not receive a letter from the victim, and there is no significant change of situation after the decision of the court below was rendered.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as equity with the same similar case, the defendant’s age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment, the background leading to the instant crime, the means and methods of committing the crime, and the circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable. Thus, this part of the defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.