The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A seizure shall be confiscated (No. 1) of any one piece.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The Defendant misunderstanding of facts merely expressed a desire to do so by a mixed-level language, and did not intend to threaten the victim.

B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant with mental and physical weakness was in a state of mental and physical weakness by drinking alcohol.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

We examine ex officio the reasons for appeal of ex officio.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court stated that the name of the crime under paragraph (1) of the same Article is a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), but the established rules on the name of the crime to be stated in the indictment and non-prosecution (Article 649 of the established rules of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on June 20, 2013), as the "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (including habitual group, deadly weapon, etc.)," and accordingly, the name of the crime under Article 3 (4) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (including punishment of the crime under Article 3 (1) and (4) of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act) is a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (including punishment of the crime under Article 13718 of the Act; hereinafter referred to as the "former Punishment of Violences"), and Article 3 (1) and (3) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Article 6 (1) of the Punishment Act) of the Criminal Act).