The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the primary facts charged

A. In light of the following: (a) at the time of the prosecutor’s gist of the grounds for appeal, the police E could clearly see the knife of the defendant’s house, and the defendant did not request the police to provide assistance if the defendant did not knife the knife; and (b) the defendant’s statements using the knife coincide with each other; and (c) the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged that the defendant, carrying with a deadly weapon and by intimidation, interfered with

B. The lower court’s judgment, among the evidence consistent with the primary facts charged, indicated on the part that “E’s statement is inconsistent with the police G’s statement sent to the site at the scene, and is contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, and that part of G’s statement is more consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, and that “the Defendant used a knife and threatened the Defendant with death,” reversed several times. According to E’s statement that causes a danger to death, the Defendant showed a knife with the police that “the knife in fact is a knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the police.” Accordingly, the Defendant

In light of the fact that the body of autopsy is not found, it is difficult to recognize credibility. ② Since F’s statement did not directly witness the field, it is insufficient to find guilty of the primary facts charged. ③ In addition, there is a difference between the description of the seizure protocol and G’s statement, ③ there is both the knife and the knife in the Defendant’s house at the time, and there is a possibility that it is difficult to clearly recognize the knife of the knife as well as the knife into two green tapes, it is difficult to deem the primary facts charged as proven without reasonable doubt.