The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

except that, for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing) is very knife and did not assault the knife by using the knife, and the punishment sentenced by the court below (in addition to a fine of two million won, confiscation) is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the case.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of special assault under Article 261 of the Criminal Act refers to the case where a person carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous object with the intent to use it for the crime at the scene of the crime, and does not include the case where a person carries a deadly weapon or carries it with his body, regardless of whether it is a crime. However, as long as the person carries a dangerous weapon or carries it with his body with the intent to use it at the scene of the crime, it does not require the victim to recognize the fact or have actually used it for the crime.

(1) According to the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant, even if the Defendant did not directly use the knife for the instant crime, did not appear to have a knife, according to the victim’s statement to the extent that the victim could have suffered a threat, she would have suffered a threat by putting the Defendant “hirrade”, sound, sound, and knife, and knife the knife.

b. Inasmuch as it is recognized that Dan-kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's k

B. In full view of the grounds for sentencing indicated in the argument of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment seems to be unreasonable, as it appears that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is unreasonable, inasmuch as it appears that the Defendant’s mistake is against himself/herself and the Defendant’s judgment was smoothly agreed with the victim, the age of 65 years old and difficult while collecting valuables.