beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant had no intention of intimidation on the ground that the victim made the same remarks as the facts charged in the instant case to the victim during response to the victim’s decline.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.
The grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant did not clearly state any mistake of facts in the trial proceedings in the court below, and did not clearly state what kind of mistake exists in the court below. The defendant's defense counsel stated during the sixth trial of the court below that "it was recognized that the defendant made the statement to the same effect as the facts charged, but there was no criminal intention of intimidation because it was in the process of responding to the other party's closed-end." Thus, the court below also held that the same argument
2. Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to a person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of intimidation does not require an intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and citing that the perpetrator informss of harm to such an extent. However, if the perpetrator’s speech or behavior is merely an expression of a mere emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the actor’s intent of intimidation or temporary dispersion is not acknowledged.
The issue of whether there was the intent of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act and the relationship with the victim as a whole.
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 delivered on May 10, 1991, etc.). The court below legitimately adopted it.