The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, among the facts charged in the instant case, there was no fact that the Defendant used a dangerous object as his hand and made a threat by leaving the victim’s scam with “to kill,” and thus, even though it does not correspond to the elements of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.), the lower court recognized it and sentenced the Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the trial court, i.e.,: ① the victim D made a statement from an investigative agency to the trial court to the effect that “the victim was scambling with the victim’s reputation as her hand and threatening him/her to kill and kill him/her.” Although there are parts that the statement in the court of the first instance would not be somewhat ambiguous and memory rather than the statement made by the investigative agency on the day of the occurrence of the crime in this case, the overall statement does not harm the consistency and the consistency of the statement, and it is rather deemed natural that memory is somewhat distorted as a whole, and ② E/S witnessing the crime in this case along with the scene at the time of the crime in this case was present at the investigative agency and the court of first instance to the same effect as the victim D. The each of the statements is consistent and specific, and all of the witness’s statements and the witness’s statements are accompanied before the occurrence of the crime in this case.