A. Although the Defendant had a phone call to the victim D at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had no motive and threat to the victim during the phone call, and had no threat to the victim.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. Although misunderstanding of legal principles, even if the Defendant had committed a hummatic theory as stated in the instant facts charged against the victim, the crime of intimidation cannot be established by neglecting the indication of emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of intimidation, which affected the judgment.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the lower court acknowledged the credibility of the victim’s statement that corresponds to this part of the facts charged, and in view of the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s telephone call and telephone call and other relevant evidence, the Defendant’s intimidation against the victim by means of the victim’s abusive or threatening speech as indicated in the facts charged.

① The victim consistently made a statement that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case from the police investigation to the court below’s trial.

The contents of the victim’s statement are not found naturally and specifically from a specific point of view, and thus, credibility exists in the statement.

The decision is judged.

The defendant sent a phone to the victim on February 2, 2015 on February 23:37, 2015 and sent a phone to the victim for "Baday".

“.....”