1. Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act provides only the crime of simple intimidation and the crime of special intimidation under the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed will of the victim. As such, Article 283(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act provides that Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act shall not apply to the crime of special intimidation which shows the threat of collective force or carries dangerous objects, and Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act shall not apply to Article 284 of the Criminal Act. Article 3(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., which applies to the defendant's act of intimidation carrying a deadly weapon in this case provides that those who commit the crime listed in Article 2(1) of the above Act, or those who commit the crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous objects, and do not have any provision as to the application of Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4658 Decided July 24, 2008, etc.). On the contrary, the assertion by a state appointed defense counsel based on the premise that a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective threat of deadly weapons, etc.) constitutes a crime of non-compliance cannot be accepted.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s assertion on mental and physical disability, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.