The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, although the defendant merely expressed the victim's abusive opinion, and had never made a statement as to the facts charged.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On March 5, 2018, the Defendant in the facts charged in the instant case: (a) at the parking lot of the Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office located in 99, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, Seosan-si, the Defendant threatened the victim by holding the victim’s vehicle door to the victim who returned home after the instant conciliation and opened the victim’s vehicle door to the victim for the reason that at the time of criminal conciliation with the victim B (the age of 51) the victim would not be dead and make a false statement; and (b) the Defendant threatened the victim.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the primary charges of this case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

C. The circumstances duly explained by the court below 1 and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the CCTV images at the time of the instant case, at the public prosecutor’s office, the victim left the building and open the door of the vehicle in the vehicle and the driver’s seat, the Defendant opened the vehicle door and speaks to the victim, and the Defendant was exposed to the victim outside the public prosecutor’s office, and the Defendant appears to have done the above actions in the criminal conciliation process. ② According to the above images, the victim was sent from the vehicle to the public prosecutor’s office, and entered the prosecutor’s office again after approximately three minutes after the Defendant went through the phone immediately after the public prosecutor’s office. ③ The victim filed a complaint immediately after the instant case, and the victim’s statement was made after the complaint, and up to the court below’s trial.