The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the defendant's grounds for appeal is as follows: although the defendant's objective facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below were acknowledged, there was no intention of threatening the victim

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of mistake of facts.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In a crime of intimidation, the term “Intimidation” means a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to an ordinary person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites to such an extent that it would cause harm and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329, Mar. 25, 2005).

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: (i) the defendant made a claim against the victim to the effect that he suffered water leakage damage due to the victim living in the above floor for a long time; (ii) the defendant filed a lawsuit for damages against the victim in 2010; (iii) the defendant was ruled against the victim on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that there was a cause of fung and fung as alleged by the defendant due to a cause attributable to the victim (the judgment was rendered on July 12, 2012 and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time); and (iii) the defendant was dispatched to the police by filing a 112 report at the time of the decision of the court below; and (iv) the defendant was punished for the victim and fung in the presence of two police officers.

The knife the knife and the knife knife of the victim, and the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife