The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The knife knife knife knife.

1. Summary of the grounds of appeal 1) Prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (non-guilty part) of the facts charged in the instant case, even though the facts charged in the lower judgment are different from the facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the crime of injury was included in the crime of injury

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2) The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

2. According to the record, the lower court’s determination as to the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and (1) The Defendant, at his own house, frightened with the victim and frightened the victim’s face.

Recognizing the horses of the victim “” and recognizing the fact of threatening the victim and threatening the victim (the 33th page, 43-4th page, 105 page of the investigation record, 2018). It is difficult to see that the act of intimidation with a lethal weapon is ordinarily conducted along with the act of injury, and the two acts are clearly different from the means and methods thereof.

In light of this point, the defendant can be evaluated as being a new criminal intent to threaten a victim with a deadly weapon after hearing the statements of the victim who had been faced with him/her.

② Unless there are special circumstances, it is the legal doctrine of the Supreme Court Decision 76Do3375 Decided December 14, 1976 that a intimidation is merely an verbal abuse committed in a single criminal intent and is included in the crime of bodily injury when the same victim becomes the same time and place as the act of bodily injury.

However, as seen earlier, in this case, the Defendant’s criminal intent of special intimidation is newly created by hearing and interesting the victim’s horses while being injured, and the statutory penalty for special intimidation is much more than the crime of intimidation and there is no difference between the crime of intimidation and the crime of bodily injury, and thus, it is necessary to separately evaluate the legal interest infringed by special intimidation. As such, this case is likewise applicable.