A. In the context of a dispute with the victim, the Defendant erred by misapprehending the fact that the first instance court convicted the victim of intimidationing the victim of the sponed tree sponed fish, which is a dangerous object, even though the victim did not have threatened the victim of “I want to die, I would like to die, I would like to die, I would like to die, I would like to die, I would like to do so. I would like to do so.”

2. The punishment sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (one-year imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the first instance trial as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim stated in the investigative agency that "I want to kill, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife," and reported to the police, the victim's statement that "I want to die, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, before the police officer arrives." Since the victim's statement was specific, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant threatened the victim while making a statement, such as the victim's death.

In addition, intimidation in the crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to an ordinary person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is sufficient to deem that the victim was promulgated due to the defendant's act, as the victim was spamed with a wooden spam, so in this regard, it can be recognized that the defendant threatened the victim with a spamed tree, which is a dangerous thing.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged is found guilty.