A. Compared misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not constitute dangerous objects, and at the time, the Defendant used a beer’s disease to prevent the victim from approaching himself/herself, and there was no fact that the Defendant threatened the victim, as stated in the facts charged, in order to prevent the victim from approaching himself/herself.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to whether an empty beer's disease constitutes a dangerous object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do647, Jun. 12, 1984; 91Do2527, Dec. 27, 1991; 96Do3411, Feb. 25, 1997; 96Do3411, Feb. 25, 1997; and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) In a crime of intimidation as to whether or not a defendant has threatened a victim, the term "Intimidation" refers to a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to an ordinary person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an actor's awareness of and citing such a threat of harm and danger, and its intent or desire to actually realize the harm that the perpetrator has notified, but whether there was a threat or intent in the above sense should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the appearance of the act but also the circumstances leading to such act, relationship with the victim, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 Delivered on March 25, 2005