A. As to the charge of special intimidation among the facts charged in this case, the Defendant merely stated that the Defendant might take excessive steps to the victim, and did not threaten the victim by putting the excessive knife to the victim.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment and fine of three hundred thousand won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court duly admitted and investigated the following circumstances: (i) the victim heard from the Defendant’s investigative agency the word “Eabab” and threatened the Defendant with “Embaba” in front of his body while taking the excessive amount of time in contact with the Defendant in front of his body.”

The Defendant stated in the lower court (2015 J. 625 investigation records No. 105), and also stated in the lower court that “The Defendant told to be able to go to the Defendant, taking excessive knife on the table table without sea).” (135 pages of the trial records), ② On-site CCTV images, the Defendant put the Defendant on the table on the table table before the table table, while making the Defendant’s knife the victim’s knife’s knife’s knife. (3) At the time, the Defendant was working as a main water.

YDo In the investigative agency, the defendant has observed that the defendant had a knife of an excessive size in the right side.

The statement(99 pages of investigation records) and 4 The defendant continued to enter the main room and operated the main point.

In light of the circumstances where it was difficult to avoid disturbance with intimidation or threat to Y, according to the Defendant’s assertion that it is difficult to obtain an excessive knife from the victim because it was merely an excessive knife for the victim, etc., the Defendant cited excessive knife and charges against the victim.