A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as stated in the facts charged of the instant case, did not assault the victim or threaten the victim to the excessive road, which is a dangerous object, as stated in Articles 2, 3, and 4.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the community service order of 120 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In determining the credibility of the statement of the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged, the court below found the defendant guilty of the witness's testimony in light of the following: (a) whether the contents of the statement conform to the rationality, logic, inconsistency, or rule of experience of the victim's statement itself; (b) whether the evidence or third party's statement conforms to the evidence or evidence; and (c) the appearance or attitude of the witness, and the appearance and appearance of the witness who is entering the witness's statement in the open court after being sworn before the judge; and (d) if the witness's statement, including the victim, conforms to the facts charged, it should not be rejected without permission, unless there are any separate materials that can see the credibility of the witness's statement from an objective point of view where it conforms to the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do2631, Jun. 28, 2012; 2015Do7427, Nov. 12, 2015).

The above relevant legal principles and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.