The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error 1) In light of the fact that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) there was no fact that there was a threat as to the victim’s brut by using the brut around the part of the victim’s brut; and (b) there is no credibility of the victim’s statement that seems to be consistent with the aforementioned facts; (c) even if there are special circumstances that may not be recognized as a dangerous thing in a specific case in light of social norms even if the brut that the brut possessed by the Defendant constituted an object dangerous to a dangerous thing in light of objective nature, the said brut cannot be recognized as a dangerous thing; and (d) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant visited the site to remove the banner, and visited the brut while attempting to remove the banner, and cited the brut while

3) Notwithstanding the above circumstances, the Defendant convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, despite the fact that the Defendant committed an act, such as intrusion at the construction site without permission, and expressed the victim’s desire in response thereto, and constitutes self-defense or legitimate act. 4) Notwithstanding the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (5 million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal, and in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged at the time of this case, expressed a desire to kill a knife, and that he threatened the victim with a knife by using the hand, which was flife with the kitchen, and in light of the contents of the above bath theory and the attitude of the defendant's act corresponding thereto.