The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.

Seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) In relation to special intimidation, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is fully admitted to the fact that the defendant carried a knife, which is a dangerous object, and threatened the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Regarding the point of legal misunderstanding special intimidation, it is not recognized that the Defendant carried a knife, which is a dangerous object, such as the description in this part of the facts charged.

Even if the facts that the defendant threatened the victim according to the victim, F, and the defendant's partial statement in the court below are sufficiently recognized, the crime of intimidation related to the above special crime should be found guilty.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted all of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the recognition of reduction.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. On June 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 16:48 on June 22, 2016, the summary of this part of the facts charged refers to “to kill and die, by taking the victim’s knife as his hand in the vicinity of the Ho apartment apartment located near G in Jeju city; and (b) the Defendant changed to “to die.”

Accordingly, the defendant carried a knife, which is a dangerous thing, and threatened the victim.

B. The lower court rendered a judgment on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, on the ground that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts.

(c)

1) In determining the credibility of the statement of the victim, etc. supporting the facts charged in the relevant legal principles, it is consistent with the rationality, logical contradiction, or empirical rule of the content of the statement itself, or with the statement of the third party.