A. The victim of mistake of facts consistently cited the kitchen knife in the police and the prosecutorial investigation, and stated that he saw the fear by the Defendant’s citing the kitchen knife and speaking “the deceased,” and the court below also made a concrete statement in the situation outside the office where the Defendant took the kitchen knife by using the kitchen knife, and acknowledged that the Defendant had taken the kitchen knife with the victim in the prosecutorial investigation, the court below rejected the Defendant’s statement based on F’s statement that it was difficult for the Defendant to believe the victim’s statement based on the F’s statement that the Defendant did not need a knife, and acquitted the Defendant, thereby not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.

B. In the crime of intimidation by misunderstanding the legal doctrine, intimidation is generally a threat of harm that may cause fear to an ordinary person, and thus, it may be done by using the same without Hanmadi. In the instant case, it is evident that the Defendant’s act outside of the office by taking the kitchen gate from the kitchen and going to the victim, is a threat of harm to the life and body of the victim by itself, and a crime of intimidation is established.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of intimidation, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty of the commencement of the crime of intimidation solely by taking the knife and taking out outside of the office without following the victim.

2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the reasons for the judgment of the court below closely, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) among the facts charged in this case, based on the circumstances in its reasoning.