A. Fact-misunderstanding or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant did not have threatened the victim with a knife or improvement.

2) The Defendant did not have any “purpose of retaliation” as provided by Article 5-9(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”).

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, one year of observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) In light of the fact that a victim of a criminal defendant’s intimidation from an investigative agency to the original trial, and the fact that there are no circumstances to suspect the credibility of the criminal defendant’s testimony that corresponds to the facts charged, it can be sufficiently recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court that the defendant appeared to be in accordance with the knife with the knife and the knife as the facts charged and threatened the victim.

The court below is just in its purport, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not acceptable.

2) The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts constituting the element of the offense charged in a criminal trial as to whether there was the purpose of retaliation against the Defendant. As such, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that there was an objective of retaliation against the offender of a violation of Article 5-9(1) of the Act. Moreover, such proof should be based on a strict proof that leads to a judge’s conviction to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such proof, the interest of the Defendant should be determined.

However, as long as there was no confession of the defendant, whether there was the purpose of retaliation against the defendant shall be determined by the act of the victim who was the subject of retaliation, such as personal relation with the victim, provision of proviso to investigation, etc. (hereinafter “providing proviso to investigation”).