A. The judgment of the court below which acknowledged the attempted crime of intimidation, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not have a knowledge of the fact that the defendant knew the harm.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a judgment of misapprehension of the legal principles, the term "in the crime of intimidation" refers to the notification of harm to an extent that would normally cause fear to a person. Thus, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an actor to actually realize or desire the harm that was notified by the actor with the awareness that such act would cause harm to such an extent. However, in a case where the actor's speech or behavior is merely an expression of simple emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent of intimidation in light of surrounding circumstances, it cannot be recognized as an act of intimidation or intimidation, but whether there was an intent of intimidation or intimidation within the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the situation leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 191, etc.). 201.

Therefore, the victim's intention of intimidation is recognized.