The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) The Defendant did not have a criminal intent to intimidation the victim. 2) The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant claiming unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of intimidation as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the content of harm and injury notified should be sufficient to cause fear to the general public, taking into account the various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and the degree of friendship and status between the offender and the other party. However, as long as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying such harm and injury, it is not necessary to cause fear to the other party, so long as the other party knew of its meaning, regardless of whether the other party actually caused fear, the elements of the crime are satisfied and should be interpreted to reach the conclusion of the crime of intimidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). Moreover, the Defendant’s act of notifying harm and injury to the victim in the crime of intimidation can be deemed as lawful use of ordinary language at the time of withdrawal of gas sprayers or, depending on circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20100Do1744.27.