The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The purport of the grounds for appeal is to recognize the fact that the victim took a bath or assault against the victim, but did not pose a threat with a deadly weapon (misunderstanding of the fact). In addition, the victim who appears in the court below as a witness made a false statement at the investigative agency.

Despite the testimony, the court below recognized the credibility of the statement to an investigative agency, not the victim's statement in the court (misunderstanding of the legal principles). 2. The judgment on the grounds of appeal on February 1, 197

A. Articles 307(1) and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that fact-finding shall be based on evidence, and the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free judgment of the judge. This means that a judge’s adoption and use of necessary evidence among admissible evidence and evaluation of the substantial value of evidence constitutes a matter of free evaluation by the judge.

Therefore, insofar as evidence with sufficient probative value is not in violation of logical and empirical rules by either rejecting evidence without reasonable grounds or adopting and using evidence clearly contrary to objective facts without any reasonable grounds, a judge may admit facts by adopting evidence with free evaluation (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11650, Aug. 20, 2015). B. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the instant case is examined.

The court below, after explaining the circumstances in its reasoning, appears to have stated the victim's statement in the court below's trial to the purport that the victim's statement in the court below's trial was prior to the victim's investigation agency, and is more reliable than the victim

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

In this regard, the circumstances stated by the lower court in particular, “The victim does not want to be punished after attending the police station after the lapse of one week from the date of occurrence of the instant case.”

It is clear that the defendant was threatened with intimidation while stating knife.