The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant, as stated in the facts charged in this case, could have acknowledged the facts of intimidation against the victim B, but the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. On May 14, 2016, the Defendant, at around 17:45, threatened the victim, with a view to putting the Paris of the Victim B (89) into the housing located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on the ground that the sound putting the Paris Fund in order to catch the Paris, the Defendant: (a) saw a stone (the width of 20cm, the length of 13cm) in the ma, which is an object dangerous to one hand; and (b) threatened the victim with the victim, under the circumstance of putting the victim’s shoulder by the other hand.

B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was without any reasonable doubt and threatened the victim with a dangerous object as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

It was insufficient to recognize it, and determined that it was not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) The Defendant consistently stated that the police, the prosecution, and the prosecution have consistently followed the facts charged and that there was no threat to the victim’s “to kill, die, or die.”

(2) On the other hand, there is a statement at the police station B as evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged (the protocol of interrogation of suspects of the police: Death and the admissibility of evidence is recognized according to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act) and a photo.

(3) The Defendant’s statement at the police and the prosecutor’s office of the Defendant, ① recognized the fact that the Defendant was fluent at the time.

② However, there was one stone with the appearance from the house when B added the kitchen to the kitchen, and the appearance was taken out of the house, and there was one stone with a stone outside the house.