A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, is not aware of the fact that the Defendant, while drinking excessive tasks at the time of the instant case, has been sprinked with his hand to take a bath against the damaged person, making the Defendant take excessive measures to comply with this, but did not possess excessive measures to use excessive tasks for committing the crime, and thus, the Defendant cannot establish a special crime of intimidation.

2) The injury claimed by the victim is not caused by the act of the Defendant, but merely a pain that can normally arise from the occupation of the victim, namely, driver, etc.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles as to the assertion of special intimidation 1) The fact that a person committed an offense under Article 283(1) or (2) of the Criminal Act by carrying dangerous articles stipulated in Article 284 of the Criminal Act with respect to the special intimidation refers to a case where the person carries dangerous articles or threatens the victim with his body, which are intended to use for the crime at the scene of the crime. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant can fully recognize the fact that the defendant threatened the victim with excessive possession of dangerous articles under the intent to use for the crime at the time of the special intimidation in light of the following circumstances:

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

① At the time of the police investigation, the victim threatened the Defendant’s face while threateninging to the lower end, and then threatened him with the knife knife as the next notification.

“The statement was made” and the telephone call with the prosecution investigator.