A. Although the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, committed a mistake of fact, there was little room for the Defendant to gather guard against the victim, there was no fact that the Defendant threatened the victim to cancel the report of assault by putting him close to the victim’s timber as stated in the facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, even if the Defendant’s special intimidation of unreasonable sentencing is established.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the following circumstances, which were duly admitted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the evidence and the evidence admitted by the court below, namely, the victim’s statements in the investigative agency and the court of the court below, which correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, are specific and consistent and are highly reliable, the defendant can find the facts of threatening the victim, which is a dangerous object at the time of the instant case, and the facts of threatening the victim in the same manner as the facts charged, and the statement by the witness I alone does not interfere with the recognition of the instant facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as alleged by the defendant.

B. Although there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the accused as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the crime of this case is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of special injury and the crime of Article 37 of the Criminal Act at the time of original adjudication, and the principle of equity in the case of concurrent adjudication, it appears that the original judgment reflected this in its entirety, and that the punishment may be changed in the original trial.