The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to Article 1 of the facts charged in the instant case No. 4192, the Defendant was not aware of the victim G face as a pipe.

2) In relation to Article 2 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not display beer soldiers.

3) In relation to Article 3 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not intimidating the victim H and F at home, and there was no assault against the victim F in knife.

4) In relation to Article 4 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have threatened the victim G with excessive intimidation.

5) In relation to Article 6 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant did not have a flick to the victim F in this case.

6) Article 9 of the facts charged of the instant case is a situation where the police officer and the police officer were able to turn forward, and there was no intention of assault, and even if there was an intention of assault, it constitutes a legitimate defense or legitimate act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the testimony of the witness G of the lower court. Since the Defendant sufficiently recognizes the fact that the victim G faces is a hack pipe, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

2) According to each of the statements made by F and G by the witness F and G of the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is also without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant has a beer’s disease.

3) According to each of the statements by the witness F, G, and H of the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim H, F, and assault the victim F in knife. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

4) According to each of the statements by the witness F and G of the lower court, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant has threatened the victim G with excessive intimidation, so the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

5) According to the statement of the witness F of the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the victim F was damaged by this susu.