The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the defendant carried a dangerous object and threatened the victim with intimidation, since the defendant did not notify the victim of harm to the extent that he could have prevented the progress of the victim's vehicle by rapidly stopping the vehicle operated by the defendant before the victim's vehicle.

2. Determination

A. In the relevant legal doctrine, intimidation refers to notifying a person of harm that may cause fear, and whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances before and after the act, such as the background leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2412, May 26, 201). As long as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying harm to such an extent that it does not require the other party to feel realistically, the elements of intimidation are satisfied, regardless of whether the other party realistically caused fear, and the crime of intimidation is committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). In addition, the act of notifying harm and injury may be deemed as having a common language or as a result, depending on the case where it would have been done.

(see, 209Do5146, Sept. 10, 2009). Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act provide that a person who, carrying a dangerous object and intimidation another person shall be punished as a special intimidation. Here, “Carrying a dangerous object” includes not only the possession but also the wide use of a dangerous object with intent to use it at the scene of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do771, Mar. 30, 2017).

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 1997).