All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal did not contain intimidation of the victim, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the part of the victim’s false statement. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. As to the assertion that the Defendants did not threaten the victim as stated in the instant facts charged, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant charges based on the evidence, on the following grounds: (a) on July 27, 2012, the victim got out of the above camping site; (b) the police officer called out; (c) the victim took part of the camping site despite the real possession of the camping site; and (d) the need for a large number of people to find out the victim; and (b) the said number of people appears to have been above the victim; and (c) the lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant charges based on the evidence.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in light of the records and legal principles of this case, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendants.

In particular, the Defendants asserted that they did not have the right to operate a camping site, and that they did at least act as a right holder as a person entitled to operate a camping site, and therefore, the Defendants asserted that they engaged in an act as a right holder, and thus, “Intimidation” generally notify the other party of harm and injury sufficient to cause fear. Whether the notice of harm and injury constitutes a notice of harm and injury should be determined by taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of the notice, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, degree of friendship, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012).

Even if the exercise of rights is justified by social norms.