A. In relation to special intimidation 1) and the destruction and damage of a special material by March 23, 2019, the fact that the Defendant had threatened the victim to “be dead” and damaged the glass, but there is no fact that the Defendant carried the knife at that time. 2) With respect to intimidation on March 23, 2019, there was no fact that the victim expressed a brue to the victim, but there was no fact that the victim threatened the victim, as it might be when drinking,.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to special intimidation and special property damage, Article 284 and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act provides that a person who has carried a dangerous object and made intimidation shall be punished as a special intimidation. Here, “in carrying a dangerous object” refers to a case where a person carries a dangerous object under the intent to use it at the scene of the crime or carries it with his/her body (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do771, Mar. 30, 2017). Such a legal doctrine applies likewise to the case of special property damage under Article 369 of the Criminal Act. (2) The lower court determined that the Defendant carried a knife, a dangerous object, on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

피해자는 원심 법정에서, 피고인이 사건 당시 식칼을 든 상태로 피해자를 협박하였고, 현관 쪽에 있다가 ‘쨍’하는 소리를 듣고 가보니 유리에 금이 가 있었으며, 유리 밑 나무부분에 칼이 꽂혀 있었다고 진술한 점, 피해자의 위 진술의 신빙성을 의심할 사정은 보이지 않는 점 등을 고려하면 피고인이 이 사건 당시 위험한 물건인 식칼을 휴대한 사실이 인정되므로, 원심판단에 피고인 주장과 같은 사실오인의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of mistake of facts regarding intimidation, the victim.