The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Article 1 of the facts charged in this case by mistake of facts, the Defendant did not say that the victim “I are fluording. I do so. I do not see that I would see that I would see that I would see that I would see that I would know about. I would like to do so at night. I would like to do so. I would like to see that I would like to see that I would see

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. The Defendant in the facts charged of this case is the Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon.

The victim D (V, 59 years old) is a family-based representative of the Seo-gu Daejeon 116 Dong-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, on July 1, 2014, who is in charge of a general director office of the C Apartment representative Council from July 1, 2016 to July 1, 2016.

1. On August 23, 2016, at around 20:0, the Defendant displayed the victim’s correspondence in his/her body and body on the ground that the occupant representative conference in the room of the resident representative conference in Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, the management office of the apartment building C, for the following reasons: (a) expressed the victim’s correspondence on the spot on the ground that the resident representative conference does not fit the opinion; and (b) threatened the victim with “Is the victim without any doubt,” and (c) expressed the victim’s correspondence

2. The defendant has committed the same harm;

9. On 22. 20:00, at the same place as above, at around 20:0, in the process of a representative meeting of occupants, “V” was made by creating “V due to recognition and suspension of recognition by the victim and by hand, on the ground that the opinion does not coincide with the opinion, and was threatening the victim by continuing to see the galle as close as the snow is close as the victim suffered, and by continuing to see the galle, “hing the snow,” and by threatening the victim by doing so.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake as to the facts related to Article 1 of the facts charged in a criminal trial should be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt, and such degree should be determined.