A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, sent a beer ker blade to the victim, and did not have any dancing, the lower court accepted the instant facts charged and found the Defendant guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the court below accepted the facts charged in this case and convicted the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of intimidation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (70,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, since the defendant was able to recognize the fact of dancing near the victim's chest at the time and place specified in the facts charged of this case by cutting beer knicks, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the victim stated in the court below that he saw the Defendant’s fear of the above act.

(3) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s act of intimidation constitutes a crime of intimidation should be based on the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s act is deemed a victim of the harm and danger, and the Defendant’s act is not a victim of the harm and danger, and thus, constitutes a crime of intimidation. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the harm and danger, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.