A. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this case, but there is an error of misconception of facts.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act constitutes intimidation in the crime of special intimidation, where it is acknowledged that at least the defendant's strong knife with a knife knife, which was cited in the dispute with the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of special intimidation is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of each of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, based on the lack of proof of crime. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records of this case, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is legitimate, and thus, rejected

B. In the crime of intimidation in the misapprehension of legal principles’ assertion, a threat means a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel a fear, and a threat of harm and injury may be made by means of ordinary language, or, as a case may be, a threat of harm and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 2011). However, insofar as other additional circumstances in this case are not proven, the prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of legal principles is not acceptable, since it is difficult to view that the defendant merely gets a knife with a knife and issued a notice of harm and injury to the victim.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.