The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal determined that the victim’s statement was credibility despite the victim’s statement was insufficient, and the defendant did not recognize it even though the victim’s loss was acknowledged, since the victim refused to receive shopping bags by taking advantage of the situation in which the victim refuses to receive shopping bags.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below: ① there is no evidence to know the situation at the time other than the statement of the victim and the defendant; ② The victim appeared in the court of the court below to use the shopping bags containing physical dust because the defendant was used as the last son of the defendant; ② The victim refused to receive the shopping bags because he could not receive the physical dust due to the Youngran Business Act; and the defendant and the victim did not know whether the defendant got off and delivered the shopping bags to the victim, or whether the defendant was able to know about the victim's losses; ② the defendant was aware that he was aware of the fact that he was able to receive the shopping bags, and the defendant's physical contact with the victim. ③ In light of the above purport of the victim's testimony, it is not acknowledged that there was a threat to the defendant's act by using the promotional materials; ③ The defendant's testimony and the victim's behavior are not likely to threaten the victim's physical contact with the victim.