The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principles) does not contain any fact that the Defendant has affixed a knife to, or threatened, the victim, and there is no time to do so.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby pronounced guilty.

2. Determination

A. On July 5, 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case showed the attitude of the Defendant as to the Defendant’s mother in Seoul, Gangnam-gu and 103, and the Defendant’s victim D (n, 61 years old) who had an obligation of KRW 20,000,00 to the Defendant’s mother of Pyeongtaek-gu, Seoul and 10,000 on the ground that the Defendant’s mother had an obligation to repay the obligation to the Defendant’s mother, she took a knife knife and knife, a dangerous thing at the home on the ground that he had an obligation to repay the obligation to the Defendant, and “Korea mother has paid the money promptly,” thereby threatening the victim, and had the victim suffered injury, such as internal feeing, which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, by continuously avoiding disturbance.

B. In light of the following, the finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to reach such a degree that it would lead to such conviction, the determination should be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there is suspicion of guilt.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416 Decided July 24, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13416, Jul. 24, 2014). The Defendant consistently denied the facts charged in the instant case from the investigative agency to the trial court. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the basis of the victim’s legal statement and the written diagnosis, and there is only a statement in D’s investigative agency as well as a false detection of the results of the investigation (written response to the results of the psychological examination).

However, as examined below, direct evidence to prove the facts charged of this case is proven.