The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Considering the mental ability of D, which is a complaint with intellectual disability 3 in the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of legal principles), D, among the facts charged in the instant case, is consistent and specific to the extent consistent with the facts of damage arising from the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter “the facts charged in this part”), and its credibility can be sufficiently recognized. However, the court below rejected the statement concerning the facts charged in this part of D without reasonable grounds, and acquitted the above facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The court below found the Defendant guilty of the injury among the facts charged in the instant case and acquitted him of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.). The court below appealed only the prosecutor on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) among the judgment below.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the injury shall be deemed to have been exempted from the object of public defense between the parties. Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court below is limited to the part of the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.

3. Determination

A. On May 3, 2014, the summary of this part of the facts charged: (a) around 13:00, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Sinju City C and 102, threatened D with the kitchen, a dangerous weapon under the influence of alcohol, in which D (the age of 42) had experienced complaints on the grounds that D (the age of 42) had living together and had refused sexual intercourse; and (b) by threatening D (a dangerously weapons under the influence of drinking water) by threatening D (i.e., a kitchen, “fincing a cigarette site.”

B. According to each statement of witness D's legal statement, D's prosecutor's office, and police's statement, the lower court's judgment held that the Defendant threatened D with the kitchen knife on the day on which the Defendant committed the crime of injury which the Defendant was found guilty.