The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles), the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant could have used dangerous articles to threaten the victim, is erroneous in the misapprehension

2. On June 23, 2014, at around 16:00, the Defendant filed a civil lawsuit against the Defendant at the home of the victim E (the 62-year-old age), the victim and the husband of the victim, against the Defendant. The Defendant filed a criminal complaint, and made a complaint against the criminal complaint, and threatened the Defendant by stating that “Influence, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma,” and threatening the victim by stating that “Influence, Ma, Ma, Ma.”

3. The prosecutor ex officio held that the court applied the provision of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. to "special intimidation" and applied the provision of the Act to "Article 3 (1), Article 2 (1) 1, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" to "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act" as the name of the crime against the facts charged of this case to "Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act", and the court permitted this.

As such, the judgment of the court below became unable to be maintained as it was changed.

However, even if there exists such a ground for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court.

4. In a criminal trial as to the prosecutor’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, the benefit of the defendant even if there is suspicion of guilt.