The meaning of "Carrying," and "Intimidation," dangerous articles referred to in the special crime of intimidation.

Articles 283(1) and 284 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10451 Decided August 17, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1567) Supreme Court Decision 2015Do7852 Decided August 19, 2015

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Seamen, Attorneys Yoon Chang-joon et al.

Busan District Court Decision 2016No1987 Decided December 22, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act provide that a person who, carrying a dangerous object and intimidation, shall be punished for special intimidation. Here, “a person carrying a dangerous object” refers to carrying a dangerous object under the intent to use it at the scene of the crime, or carrying a body. “Intimidation” generally refers to notifying the other party of any harm sufficient to cause fear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012; 2015Do7852, Aug. 19, 2015).

B. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed a special intimidation on the ground that the knife, which is a dangerous object that the Defendant prepared in advance, sent a harm to the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, and that it constitutes an act that generally constitutes an act sufficient to cause a person to feel fear.

C. Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the degree of carrying and intimidation dangerous goods in a special intimidation, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The lower court, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant committed a crime of intimidation on the ground that the Defendant committed a crime of intimidation on the ground that (a) the Defendant was taking a knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife,

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, we cannot accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and that the Defendant merely expressed an emotional bath and temporary decentralization without using blades on a different premise from the facts acknowledged by the lower court.

3. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

A. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Defendant committed a special crime of assault and a special injury on the ground that the Defendant: (a) knife the knife, a dangerous object of the Defendant, toward Nonindicted 4; (b) knife the knife knife knife knife knife toward the body of Nonindicted 5; and (c) knife the knife knife knife knife kn

B. Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik (Presiding Justice)