The defendant shall be innocent.

A. At the time, the Defendant stated that the Defendant “Isn't speak,” but did not say, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, that the Defendant “Is the horse well,” and even if the Defendant was aware of the fact, it does not constitute intimidation. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant is a public official working in the B Regional Employment and Labor Office. At around 15:00 on July 20, 2017, the Gwangju Mine Police Office C Office stated, “A submitted a document which was removed by A has the official seal attached to the prosecutor’s seal” with the victim D who filed a complaint for the preparation of a false official document, and the victim was subject to a heavy quality investigation related to the accusation case, and the victim stated, “I have the official seal attached to the public document which was removed by A,” and the victim continued to submit “I have the official seal attached to the relevant case,” and the documents which are 10% evidence of the witness examination. I have the same behavior as the victim committed against the victim.”

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

C. In the crime of intimidation for a trial by a party means to give notice of harm to the extent that it would normally cause fear to a person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of the crime refers to recognizing and citing that the actor would give notice of harm to such an extent.