The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of committing the crime of special intimidation as stated in the judgment of the court below (not guilty portion of the judgment of the court below), displayed the kitchen, which is a dangerous thing to the victim J, and put about about about 30 meters of the number of days of medical treatment on the left side of the victim.

B. The court below's decision on unfair sentencing: 10 months of imprisonment, 3 years of suspended execution, and confiscation.

2. The lower court rendered ex officio determination on whether confiscation had been made in accordance with Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act regarding the seized kitchen knife (No. 1).

Articles subject to confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act shall be those provided or intended to be provided for criminal acts, and they shall not belong to any person other than the criminal.

Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act provides that “a person who commits a crime” includes an accomplice, as well as the things owned by the accomplice may be confiscated regardless of whether he/she is an accomplice or not. Here, an accomplice includes not only a co-principal, a person who commits a crime of aiding and abetting, but also a person who is in a requisite co-offender relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do5586, Nov. 23, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, a health room and a seized kitchen were on the kitchen table of the FIS Game site, which is at the time of the crime, at the time of the crime. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone transferred or renounced the ownership of the kitchen blade.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the owner is an accomplice of a special intimidation as stated in the judgment below, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Therefore, inasmuch as there is no evidence that the kitchen knife meets the requirements of confiscation, there is an error in the judgment of the court below which misleads the defendant about the part of confiscation of No. 1, or misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion

However, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined by changing the claim.

3. mistake of facts by the prosecutor.