The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) was that the victim was not at the scene at the time when the defendant was left to be her, and the victim was unable to be seen as the victim at the time when he was left to be her, and there was a partitions between the entrance door where the victim was placed and the defendant's table. The victim was in a structure that could not be seen as a shoulderer, and even if the victim did not possess the above beer, it was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts in the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant.

2. In order to establish a crime of intimidation, the crime of intimidation must be deemed to be sufficient to cause fears to ordinary people. However, the other party does not demand such fears in reality. As long as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying harm to such an extent that the other party knew of its meaning, the elements of intimidation shall be deemed to have been satisfied regardless of whether the other party realistically caused fears, and such elements shall be interpreted to have reached the end of the crime of intimidation.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007). “Person who committed a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to the case where he carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous object under “the intention to use” at the scene of the crime, or carries it with his body. It does not include the case where he carries a deadly weapon or other dangerous object regardless of at least the crime. However, as long as he carries a dangerous object, such as a deadly weapon, etc., under the intention to use at the scene of the crime, or carries it with his body, it does not require the victim to recognize the fact or actually use it for the crime.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Do914 Decided March 30, 2007). In full view of the above legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.