The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 5, 2013, the facts charged in the instant case revealed that the Defendant, at around 00:10 on May 5, 2013, sent the Victim D (the age of 58) located in Ansan-si, had the Victim D (the age of 58) to sing the victim into the above room, but the victim was unable to sing and talk with the victim, and would have to go out of the above room. However, the Defendant threatened the victim with a dangerous weapon that was hidden in the knife in the knife, and then put the knife on the knife, expressed the victim’s attitude that the victim would inflict harm on the body of the victim, such as “I do not interfere with the knife’s body.”

2. Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel a threat in general. As such, an intentional constituent element of a subjective constituent element does not require an intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows, citing, or citing, that the perpetrator informss such harm to the degree. However, in a case where 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 intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the perpetrator’s intent of intimidation or temporary dispersion is not acknowledged.

The issue of whether there was the intent of intimidation or intimidation in the above meaning 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, etc. comprehensively considering the surrounding circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006; 90Do2102, May 10, 1991). According to the witness D’s legal statement, the Defendant’s talks between D and peaceful atmosphere at the time and place specified in the instant facts charged.