A. The Defendant’s act does not constitute a special crime of intimidation since the Defendant’s act was committed prior to the commencement of fighting with the Defendant and the victim, while the Defendant’s act did not constitute a special crime of intimidation, inasmuch as the Defendant’s act was intended to conceal excessive amount of money.

B. When considering the circumstances of the above case, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a crime of intimidation as to a factual mistake’s assertion, the term “Intimidation” means, in general, informing a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fears. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require the intent or desire to actually realize the harm and danger that the actor knows and citing that it would give notice of such harm and injury to the extent that it would cause fears.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant could find the fact that the victim had knife with the victim while she had a knife or dispute with the victim due to the late arrival of the victim and divorce, and that the defendant had no intent to cause harm to the victim's body by using the knife.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes a threat to the victim by carrying a knife, which is a dangerous thing, and there was no criminal intent of special intimidation against the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. The victim did not want the punishment against the defendant, but the defendant did not have any criminal history. However, the crime of this case cited the knife, which is a dangerous object and discarded.