All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the facts charged No. 3 of the instant facts charged, the Defendant cited the kitchen gate, which is a dangerous object, and threatened D and F.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Criminal Act regarding the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts provides aggravated punishment for an act of intimidation by carrying dangerous articles as a special intimidation. As such, whether an article used constitutes a dangerous element of a special intimidation ought to be determined by examining the original purpose of use, size and shape of the article, the method of using the article in the specific crime process, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002; 2012Do4175, Jun. 14, 2012). Accordingly, examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, closely examining the evidence, D, F, and H cited by the Defendant as an inferior article, and “defrising it” to D and F.

“..”

Although the kitchen is found from the inner floor of D's house after the crime, it is found that the Defendant threatened D and F with the kitchen knife by carrying the kitchen knife on such circumstance.

It is difficult to recognize the meaning of a kitchen, etc. (only when the Defendant s/he takes the kitchen of his/her kitchen with his/her kitchen in the house immediately before the crime was committed, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that the Defendant left the kitchen while leaving the kitchen at the time of his/her own release.) If so, as the lower court cannot recognize a special crime of intimidation without examining the original purpose of use, size and shape of the article carried by the Defendant in this case where the article carried by him/her at the time of his/her intimidation was not specified, and the method of using the article in the specific criminal process, etc., as such, the lower court’s special intimidation in this part of the facts charged.