All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 2 had been rained on April 22, 2018, so if the Defendant was frighted, there must remain a Madern country, and this remains not in its own country.

On April 22, 2018, the Defendant did not intimidating the victim due to the protruding of a dangerous object.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, based on the misunderstanding of facts (the existence of intimidation on July 2017, the existence of intimidation on the first order, the existence of intimidation on the September 9, 2017, October 2017, and each date on February 2018), the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim, as described in this part of the facts charged, can be acknowledged.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined as to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant could have acknowledged the fact of threatening the victim by taking advantage of the circumstances as stated in the lower judgment, such as where the Defendant was a dangerous object

The decision was determined.

According to the evidence examined by the court below, in the Sung-gun, which was the place of the crime on April 22, 2018, the day of the crime, 15:00, and 0.1m around 16:0, and thereafter, from around 21:00 to again 0.2m around 0.2m (the 211th page of the investigation record), the fact that the rained amount was low at around 18:30 around 18:30, which was the place of the crime, was not the degree of milch (the milch of the investigation record) can be acknowledged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasons in light of the above facts and the evidence investigated by the court below, the above fact finding and judgment by the court below are justified, and there was no error by misconception of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

B. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim on July 2017 and the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim with a dangerous object on each of the following occasions:

The judgment below

The court below examined the reasons.