The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court dismissed the prosecution as to intimidation and assault among the facts charged in the instant case, and convicted the remainder of the facts charged.

However, only the Defendant appealed the aforementioned guilty portion, and the dismissal of the public prosecution became final and conclusive as it is, as the prosecutor did not separately appeal the aforementioned dismissal part.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the market / [the part concerning the crime of intimidation] since the defendant found the restaurant operated by the victim and did not have the victim at the site at the time of opening the

Therefore, there is no retaliation for the purpose of retaliation itself.

B. At the time of committing each of the instant crimes with mental disorder, he was drunk and was in a state of mental disability.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

3. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of intimidation as a general crime of intimidation, the content of harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people, in full view of 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, it does not require the other party to feel feel realistically, and as long as the other party recognized its meaning by notifying the harm and injury to such an extent that the other party recognized its meaning, the elements of the crime of intimidation shall be satisfied, regardless of whether the other party realistically promulgated, and it shall be interpreted that the elements of the crime of intimidation are met and the crime of intimidation are completed.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316 Decided January 27, 2011). (B) The lower court in the instant case.