1. On the first ground for appeal

A. Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act provide that a person who, carrying a dangerous object and intimidation shall be punished for special intimidation. Here, “the carrying of a dangerous object” refers to the case where the person possesses a dangerous object under the intent to use at the scene of the crime or carries his body, and “Intimidation” generally refers to the case where a person who becomes the other party has made the other party a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2011Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012; 2015Do7852, Aug. 19, 2015). B. The lower court: (a) based on the circumstances in its reasoning, the lower court: (b) made the Defendant’s preparation in advance on a knife, which is a dangerous object; (c) made the victim F and G, and made the other party generally feel of harm and injury; and (d) made the Defendant feel of such danger and injury.

The decision was determined.

(c)

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the degree of carrying and intimidation dangerous objects in a special crime, or by misapprehending logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A. The court below, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, held that the defendant committed a crime of intimidation on the ground that the defendant was committed on the ground that he left a knife, knife, knife, knife, and collected the knife, and notified the victim I of

The decision was determined.

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and on the premise that the lower court recognized the fact, the Defendant’s emotional bath and lump sum without using blades.