In order to establish a crime of intimidation, the content of the harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to a person generally in light of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the relation between the perpetrator and the other party, surrounding circumstances at the time of the notification, friendship and status, etc. between the perpetrator and the other party, and relationship between the third party and the third party, etc., if the third party has been notified of harm and injury by a third party, etc., but it does not require the other party to feel feel realistically. However, as long as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying the harm and injury to such an extent that the other party has recognized its meaning, the elements of intimidation shall be deemed to have been met and the crime of intimidation shall be interpreted to have been committed, regardless of whether

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of the instant conjunctive facts charged for the reasons indicated in its holding. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

In addition, considering the circumstances revealed in the records, such as the background leading up to the instant crime, method of crime, the defendant's act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the instant crime. Therefore, the lower court is justifiable to have rejected the Defendant's assertion on the mental disorder on the grounds of its stated reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the