All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, September 21, 201.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court of first instance (public prosecutor)’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. The judgment of the court below of the second instance (the defendant and the prosecutor) 1) misunderstanding of facts (1) 2-A of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below.

paragraphs 3 and 3-A

In relation to paragraph (1), there is no fact that the Defendant made a knife and threatened E, or left a glass, and then died, and then discarded.

(2) Criminal facts No. 2-B of the judgment of the court below

paragraphs, 3-b.

In relation to the claim, there is no fact that the Defendant did not demand money from H to request money, and there is no fact that the Defendant could have left the glass of the ward due to his harmony.

(3) Criminal facts No. 2-C. of the judgment of the court below

In relation to the claim, the defendant does not have to find in the J's house and there is no fact that the defendant made a threat to the J's house.

(4) In relation to the crime No. 4 of the judgment of the court below, although the defendant found himself and expressed his desire to do so, he did not intimidation.

B) The lower court’s sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. 2) The prosecutor (in fact-finding) found the lower court not guilty on September 21, 201, 201, on September 21, 201, of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.), intimidation around 17:00 on September 21, 201, of intimidation around 17:0, of July 22, 2012, and of the destruction of the present main structure, must be found guilty according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, prior to the judgment of the court of appeal on the grounds of ex officio determination. Since the judgment of the court of first instance are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with regard to each of the above cases on which appeal was lodged, the court of

3. The Defendant alleged that there was a mistake of facts against the Defendant’s second instance judgment in the lower court’s judgment as to the grounds for appeal of this case, and the second instance judgment is under the title of “the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion and judgment.”