A. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (the act of misunderstanding the facts, intimidation, etc.), the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although the defendant merely tried to do harm with knife knife knife and knife knife knife knife knife D

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in August, community service order 120 hours, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., ① the victim has consistently made a statement from the police to the court of the court below to the effect that “the defendant cited a knife, brying, and threatening himself as with the Defendant’s house,” ② the statements made by the police officer E and the court of the court of the court below in the witness E, witness F, and G correspond to the victim’s above statements; ③ the photograph taken by the police officer during the crime of this case corresponds to the victim’s above statements, ③ the fact that the defendant threatened the victim with a knife, which is a dangerous article, can be sufficiently recognized, such as the facts charged, so the defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. Considering the fact that the Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing denies the instant crime up to the party’s trial and cannot be deemed to seriously reflect the mistake, and that the Defendant did not agree with the victim up to the party’s trial, and that the Defendant had several records of punishment for violent crimes (seven times of fine and two times of suspended sentence of imprisonment) in the past, the victim already held corporeal movables owned by the Defendant several times.