The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the victim’s house, even though the victim was able to live the room floor from the victim’s house to the hand floor, there is no fact that the victim threatened the victim by drinking the victim when putting the victim’s bath as stated in the facts charged.

Family Affairs Defendant’s above act

This does not constitute intimidation, because it is nothing more than the appeal that the victim complained of the sound and suppression.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at around 23:00 on June 12, 2015, at the victim E’s house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Defendant, at around 23:00, did not give appraisal due to the access to the Easternjin-gun, he would throw away the Defendant’s death at the time.

The term “the victim made a threat to the victim by drinking at several times,” and by threatening the victim’s house floor at home.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charges of this case on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the victim’s statement that corresponds to the facts charged of this case is reliable; (b) the victim’s statements and actions were made by the Defendant; (c) the contents and degree of threatening the victim to feel; and (d) the relationship between the Defendant and the victim; and (c) the facts charged of this case are sufficiently recognized as having threatened the victim, such as the facts recorded in the judgment in the Defendant’s crime.

(c)

However, the above decision of the court below is not acceptable.

In other words, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone intended to inform the victim of harm and cause the victim to feel a threat, i.e., the intention of intimidation.