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.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although it is sufficient to recognize the guilty of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

Judgment

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant threatened the victim with the victim D (the age of 48), who is currently serving in a divorce lawsuit, and around 23:00 on May 15, 2014, the Defendant threatened the victim by saying, “The total length of the dangerous object (21cm, 9.5 cm) to the victim’s face during dispute with the property division problems under Article 203 of the Y-gu, Busan, Suwon-gu E-gu, Seoul, about May 15, 2014.”

B. The lower court acquitted the victim of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to find that the victim’s statement alone constituted a crime such as the date and time, place, etc. recorded in the facts charged on the grounds as delineated below.

(1) The direct evidence of the facts charged in the instant case is that the statement of the victim that the defendant had been threatened with intimidation from the ward to the will of the defendant, and thus, the victim could not prevent the defect that the defendant was tried to go out of the damaged house while driving the vehicle, and the defendant again stated that he/she had to go to the house to another place, and that he/she had to go to the house to the house by the defendant, and therefore, he/she could not obtain the above action from the victim if he/she was in a state of interest to the degree that the defendant would go to the house to the house to the house to the house to the house to the house to the contrary.

(2) The Defendant did not find an excessive trace on the side of the State that the Defendant was in excess.

(3) There is no evidence other than the statement of the victim.

C. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, namely, ① the victim clearly stated from the time of the 112 declaration that he/she had a knife and threatened himself/herself, and the above statement was in the trial.