A. Although the defendant had a knife at the time of the instant case, there was no intention to use the knife for the purpose of intimidation.

In light of the fact that at the time the defendant was laid on the knife of the defendant, but the victim brought about it, it is clear that the defendant did not have the above intention.

Furthermore, the contents of the Defendant’s sound do not constitute intimidation to the extent that it would cause fears to the victim merely because they merely make the victim’s humiliation or deception.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.). In the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the meaning of intimidation or mistake

B. Considering the fact that the case was a contingent event due to an unfair sentencing under the influence of unfair sentencing, reflects the fact that the defendant agreed with the victims, that the ordinary defendant engaged in a large amount of social contribution activities, such as prison missionary work, etc., and that the defendant, who is a permanent resident of the United States, did not remain long, the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant knife the knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.