A. Although the Defendant alleged a mistake of fact had a knife, or had no intention to threaten or harm the victim, the judgment of the court below that recognized the injury by carrying a deadly weapon is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence, such as the witness F’s statement, the injury diagnosis statement (F), deadly weapons photographs, etc., which the court below duly adopted and investigated the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below is justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, on the grounds that it sufficiently recognizes the Defendant’s threat of the victim by using a knife and by pushingly damaging the victim’s breath, and that the victim’s b

B. The Defendant has been punished several times as a violent offender; however, the Defendant did not engage in a repeated crime during the repeated period, and again threatened the victim with knife, etc.; the nature of the crime is very rough and not good; the Defendant’s judgment in January 1 and 6, which was sentenced by the lower court, was the lowest punishment within the scope of discretionary mitigation; and other various circumstances, including the motive and background of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and environment, which are the conditions for the sentencing indicated in the instant case, are considered appropriate.

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal can not be seen as a part of the mother or there is no reason to do so