The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not mean that the victim would be killed, and the victim used a gas gun (Blber gas gun) to protect himself/herself in the situation where the victim first pusheds himself/herself.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, probation, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether an article of the relevant legal doctrine constitutes a “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined by whether the other party or a third party could have caused harm to life or body when using the article in light of social norms. Meanwhile, in order to establish a crime of intimidation, the content of harm and injury notified should be sufficiently enough to cause harm to people to feel fear in light 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, etc., but it does not require the other party to feel fear in reality. As long as the other party perceived the meaning of harm and injury by notifying the other party of such degree, it does not necessarily mean that the other party’s act of notifying harm and injury in the crime of intimidation satisfies the elements of a crime of intimidation, regardless of whether the other party realistically caused fear, and thus, it should be interpreted that it constitutes a crime of intimidation in light of the legal principles as seen below.