The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant cited a knife as stated in the facts charged of the instant case and killed the victim.

There is no fact of intimidation.

The statements of the witness of the court below are inconsistent and are excessively contrary to other evidence, so it is not reliable.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case / [Basic Facts] Defendant K-6 Camp hump sumpus

United States Armed Forces in Korea.

[2] On September 29, 2019, the Defendant: (a) on September 29, 2019, 15:12, on the ground that there was a dispute over the Defendant’s return dog and the victim D’s return dog around the “C” playground located in Pyeongtaek-si B; and (b) on the ground that there was a dispute over the Defendant’s return dog, the Defendant knife knife (a total length of approximately 13 cm) which is a dangerous object possessed in the knife’s knife, and knife the Defendant’s knife with other hand; and (c) on the part of the victim, the Defendant knife with the knife with the knife.

"Abrupt d.", "abrupt d.", and "abrupt death".

The public prosecutor shall kill the bracker of the water surface with the initial “bracker.”

Personal death shall be the same as "," "," "," and "as soon as possible."

“Any person who made the statement”

Although a public prosecution was instituted, the indictment was corrected to delete the above ‘ponner' and ‘personal' on the third public trial date.

The remarks were made in English, and the statements were made as if they were harmful to the life and body of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

3. The lower court’s determination that the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for the above appeal, and that the lower court, as to this, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to ① the victim reported 112 immediately after the occurrence of the instant case, while displaying the knife by a foreigner,

money.