The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not mean that the victim would die at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though he merely saw the victim as his hand while working with the tools, and thus cannot be deemed to have threatened with the victim with a deadly weapon, the lower court convicted him of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the mistake of facts or intimidation with a deadly weapon carrying with a deadly weapon, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if the crime of unfair sentencing is recognized, the sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and twenty hours of community

B. In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that the prosecutor (unfair) denies the Defendant’s criminal act while denying the Defendant’s criminal act and the fact that the Defendant did not agree with the victim, the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (old: one year of imprisonment, and one year of confiscation) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, the records show that the articles seized under subparagraph 1 of Article 2011, subparagraph 1 of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office at the District Public Prosecutor's Office at the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office, which are the articles provided for the crime of this case, are clearly subject to voluntary confiscation pursuant to Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the possibility of preventing recidivism can not be ruled out unless the articles are confiscated. It is reasonable to confiscate the above seized articles in general. However, since the court below's failure to sentence the above seized articles without any special reason constitutes an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment beyond the discretionary authority regarding discretionary confiscation, the court below cannot maintain any further.

However, such as this.