The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the court below found the defendant guilty of intimidation against A, which is a dangerous object, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) around 12:10 on September 10, 2015, the Defendant: (b) expressed the victim’s desire to commit an act of assaulting the victim upon the victim’s head when the victim took a bath to the Defendant; and (c) threatened the victim with the victim’s brupt, which is a dangerous thing that had been located therein; and (d) threatened with the victim’s part on the part of the victim.

B. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (a) ① there is a conflict between the Defendant and the commercialization room operation and (b) it is difficult to believe the statement as it is; (c) A and C have threatening the Defendant to take photographs using Handphones; (d) the Defendant was the Defendant, not A and C; and (c) the Defendant was the Defendant; (d) the Defendant reported 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 112 up to 3; and (d) the Defendant was arrested as an flagrant offender and was first investigated at the police station after receiving the report, and (d) from the written statement prepared by the Defendant to 112 up to 12 up to 7:00 after the Defendant made a statement to the lower court.