The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misconception of facts against the threat of carrying dangerous objects, the Defendant only used a saf to open a locked visit, and did not directly harm the victim’s head, such as the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below duly adopted and examined the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: ① the victim reported to the police immediately after the victim was abused and threatened, and specifically stated to the police officer dispatched to the police; ② the victim, despite being abused by the defendant, who suffered a large amount of harm caused by the victim, was asked at an investigative agency, that “the victim was not subject to violence from the defendant,” and when he was investigated at the investigative agency, “the victim did not fit the truth that he made intimidation that the defendant was dead of the face of the face.” The victim’s statement is deemed to have been consistently threatened without exaggeration of the damage, and the credibility of the victim’s statement can be recognized by considering the fact that the victim stated in the first police investigation, ③ When the victim was investigated at the prosecutor’s office after agreement, the victim reversed the statement that “the fact that the victim was threatened with the victim,” and the victim’s statement that led the defendant to reverse the credibility and credibility of the statement made in the prosecutor’s office, and the defendant’s reply to the truth of the statement.