The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A knife knife that was sled by a misunderstanding of fact was sled by the Defendant and C, but the Defendant did not commit any act that seems to have harmful effects on C or C’s son by leaving the knife on the floor.

Therefore, the defendant's act may constitute a crime of simple intimidation, but since C and D do not want to be punished against the defendant, the facts charged in this case must be dismissed.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, prior to the judgment on the grounds of the appeal by the prosecutor, the Prosecutor came to know that “A victim D, who is a father of a person related to a de facto marriage C (at the age of 25) is in the attitude of disregarding himself/herself,” and “C” of Section 5 of the facts charged in the instant case as “B, considering that C, who is a person related to a de facto marriage (at the age of 49), disregards himself/herself.”

“A dead person or a person at the end of the end”

As such, an application for amendment to a bill of amendment was filed with the purport of changing the deceased, the end of the day, and the deceased, and the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court, so the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope related to the revised facts charged, and this is examined below and whether the revised facts charged for convenience are recognized also.

B. On December 22, 2015, the summary of the revised facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant thought that C, a de facto marriage victim C, who was a de facto related person, was disregarded of himself/herself at the Defendant’s residence located in 00:00 Ansan-si, Masan-si; (b) he/she saw the victim as his/her own room to collapse, and thereafter he/she was able to view the victim.