A. The Defendant was not guilty of threatening the victim in knife.

The Defendant consistently asserts his incompetence.

The testimony of E by the witness E presented as evidence of guilt in the original trial is insufficient in light of the relationship with the defendant, etc.

At the site,

F testified in the court below that the defendant was knife and there was no fact of intimidation against the victim.

The CCTV images submitted in this case do not clearly show the aspect corresponding to the facts charged in this case.

Above all, the victim testified in the court of the court below to the effect that “the defendant was not aware of the knife’s knife,” and “the defendant was not threatened.”

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) is based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the possession of the Defendant’s knife goods, and the situation where the Defendant was threatening by the Defendant’s knife, the victim was found to have been a CCTV image. However, if the Defendant was not a threat by knife, there was no reason for the victim to do the above act at the time. ② The F also stated that he was the Defendant by threatening the Defendant’s knife at the police investigation stage, and ③ the victim submitted a written application to the investigative agency for the Defendant’s knifeing of the Defendant’s wife, and the victim did not have been victimized. In so doing, the fact of intimidation by the Defendant knife.