The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although the defendant misunderstanding of facts (the part 1 of the facts charged in the judgment of the court below) did not intend to have a knife and threatened the victim, is erroneous in the

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the court below, the name of the crime No. 1 in the judgment of the court below was examined as "special intimidation", and the applicable law provides that "Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" in Article 2 of the applicable law provides that "Article 284 of the Criminal Act" shall be "Article 284 of the Criminal Act", and the previous facts of the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below shall be "special damage", and Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) of the Act provides that "Article 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" in the applicable law provides that "Article 3 (1) and Article 2 (1) of the same Act shall be changed to "Article 369 of the Criminal Act" and the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained.

However, despite such reasons for ex officio reversal, the issues pertaining to the revised facts charged (the facts constituting the crime of the court below, part 1) are substantially identical to the grounds for appeal by the defendant on this part. Therefore, the grounds for appeal are still subject to the judgment of this court.

Therefore, this paper examines the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts as seen earlier by changing the claim, and based on the facts charged as changed in the trial.

【Revised Facts】

1. A special intimidation: (a) around 22:00 on March 23, 2015; (b) on the ground that the Defendant expressed the victim C’s complaint against his or her frequent drinking; (c) on the ground that he or she was aware of the victim C’s complaint against his or her drinking, he or she was making a dispute, and (d) he or she was “abscination of death,” and (d) he or she deducted the knife, which is a dangerous object that

(b) the victim.