As to this, there was only the defendant's appeal against the request for probation order since there was no benefit of appeal against the request for probation order, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 21-8 and 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, the request for probation order among the judgment below is excluded from the scope of judgment of this court, and only the defendant's case falls

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the misapprehension of the legal principle did not state that the Defendant collected Haki bonds, there was no fact that the victim I was posted to the victim, and since there was two police officers at the time, it was not a situation that could cause fear to the victim I due to the above act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment, 120 hours of order) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of intimidation 1-related legal doctrine’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the details of harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people, in full view of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the relation between the perpetrator and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and the degree of friendship and status between the perpetrator and the other party. However, it does not require that the other party in reality feel fear, and as long as the other party perceived its meaning by notifying harm and injury, the elements of intimidation are satisfied regardless of whether the other party realistically raised fear.