A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles did not threaten the victim to the vehicle in which the victim escaped without the time when the defendant threatened the victim, and by negligence, the vehicle of the defendant and the victim conflict with the vehicle of the victim, but did not have received intentionally the cargo of the victim by the vehicle of the defendant.

(Article 1 and 2 of the original judgment). In addition, the victim goes beyond the defendant and knife the defendant's knife with his knife, and there is no fact that the defendant intentionally knife the victim's knife with his knife, and there is no fact that the prosecutor stated that "the defendant has knife with his knife

(3) The court below found the defendant guilty on the grounds of the first and second suspect interrogations of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor including the contents of which the defendant did not make any statement and the victim and I's statements, etc., which are not reliable, is erroneous in the misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles on admissibility of evidence.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the community service order of three years and 80 hours of suspended execution in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the part on the Defendant’s intentional knife among the first and second suspect interrogation protocols against the Defendant prepared by the Prosecutor, which stated that the Defendant intentionally knife the victim’s knife among the first and second suspect interrogation protocols against the Defendant prepared by the Prosecutor, is inadmissible, even if the Defendant’s failure to make a statement was written and the authenticity is not acknowledged, as seen in paragraph (2) below, other evidence presented by the lower court, excluding the part without such admissibility, is admissible