The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, citing knife and misunderstanding of legal principles, did not have the intent of not threatening or threatening the victim on the ground that the Defendant died of a son who is not the victim.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Whether an article of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles constitutes “hazardous object” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act should be determined by whether the other party or a third party could feel any danger to life or body when using the article in light of social norms. In order to establish a crime of intimidation, the content of harm and injury notified should be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people in light of various circumstances before and after the act, including the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and mutual relationship between the offender and the other party, such as the degree of friendship and status.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146 Decided September 10, 2009). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant who had been subject to repeated criminal punishment by violence at the time of the instant case, the defendant 17 years old female victims E with no knife or no knife at the house with which he was 17 years old female victims E, and the defendant "brue" means "brue". Although it is closely related, such as the defendant's living together with the defendant, it can be acknowledged that E, who had been sabrud by the defendant prior to being well aware of the defendant's violent power, has died of the defendant's horse.

Even if the Defendant’s speech and behavior had the intent to kill cruelly, it is sufficient for E to feel a danger to his/her own life or body and to feel a fear, and the Defendant was aware of it.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. The records of this case’s unreasonable sentencing.