The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. On July 11, 2014, there was no fact that the Defendant, who committed the crime on July 11, 2014, damaged the Defendant by selling in a knife in front of the victim.

(2) Although the victim of the crime committed on July 18, 2014 spreads the gasoline head before deeming the victim to have committed the crime, the victim did not appear to have the same attitude, and did not have threatened the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court acknowledged the Defendant’s act of threatening the victim, i.e., selling the knife in front of the victim as indicated in the facts charged, and putting the gasoline into the knife after putting it into the head, and putting the gasoline into the Rab.

① The victim of the lower judgment’s judgment that “on July 11, 2014, the Defendant would die with himself/herself on his/her own car.”

With intimidation, his arms were made several times in knife with a knife.

On the other hand, the defendant had a knife with windows on the way that he go to the hospital after coming in the hospital.

On July 18, 2014, the Defendant opened a door to work, which seems to be blicker and blicker in her head by leaving the blick and showing the blicker in her head.

“The statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

The victim consistently stated to the same purport in the investigation and the trial proceedings before the commencement of a new trial. The victim may believe that the statement is very specific.

② The Defendant recognized the entire facts charged in the investigation and trial before the commencement of the retrial (in this case, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision of commencing the retrial on the grounds of the re-examination under Article 47(4) of the Act, but the above grounds for retrial merely did not err by misapprehending the legal provisions on punishment, which serve as the basis of the judgment, retroactively lose its validity, and did not err in recognizing facts at the final and conclusive judgment).