A. Although the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) did not have a knife a victim, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence (limited to 8 months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by explaining detailed circumstances. Examining the evidence of this case closely, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and thus, it does not accept the Defendant

B. According to the instant argument and record regarding the prosecutor’s improper assertion of sentencing, the lower court appears to have been reasonably determined by fully considering the various sentencing grounds asserted by the prosecutor, and there is no special circumstance to ex post facto change the sentencing.

3. In conclusion, the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.