The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the victim’s statement was more reliable than that of the defendant’s defense, the court below found the victim’s statement not guilty of special intimidation. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one year of a suspended sentence in April) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below is doubtful that the defendant threatened the victim as stated in this part of the facts charged, but there is no objective evidence to see that the victim brought about the wall at his own house in addition to this case's site, and that there was no possibility that the victim took the wall immediately after the police investigation process, even though the victim visited Masan District with the wall for a considerable time, the defendant was subject to a disposition of no suspicion several times by the victim. (3) Special intimidation reported by the defendant to Masan District at a short time as to the crime of violence among the facts charged in this case. (4) There was no wall around the scene of this case, and there was no objective evidence to see that the victim brought about the wall at his own house, and the victim did not appear to have taken the wall immediately after the police investigation process, and (5) The victim stated that the victim was not guilty of the credibility of the statement prepared by the victim after the victim's first statement.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance.