The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding [Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (a group, a deadly weapon, etc.)] up to two to three times a fire extinguisher;

was put on.

However, the defendant was guilty of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) against the defendant, although he did the above actions to display his labor with his labor at the time when the appraisal was conducted, and there was no threat as to the victim as he saw the fire extinguisher. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court (one year of suspension of execution in June, community service, 80 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below; (b) the victim consistently expressed the victim’s desire during the police from the police to the court of the court below that the victim threatened with the victim by putting the fire extinguishing machine down, etc.; (c) the defendant consistently put the fire extinguishing machine up to the court of the court below until the court of the court below; and (c) the defendant also made a statement to the effect that he had the fire extinguishing machine broken up; and (d) the defendant took up two to three times in the process of dispute with the victim, taking into account the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the fact that even if the defendant acted in the above manner with the expression of a simple window, it appears that the above act of the defendant was sufficient to cause the other party to spread, as stated in the judgment of the court below, it can be sufficiently acknowledged that the defendant carried the fire extinguishing machine, which is a dangerous object, and the defendant asserts and asserts in the judgment of the court below.