Therefore, although it is clear that the defendant's act constitutes intimidation, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case reveals that the Defendant’s act of this case was merely a mere expression of a simple emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion, and that the other party’s act was sufficiently threatened with harm to the extent of causing fear.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows. The defendant was found not guilty on the ground that the defendant could not be seen as having known it, and the summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows. The defendant heard the horses from the wife E on November 6, 2013 that "the defendant was raped from F," and he called F's cell phone around November 13:36, 2013, but called F's wife G (W, 55 years old) victim G (W, 55 years old) of F, who was the victim of F's cell phone, "on how the son's husband was inside, the son should be killed."

1) The following can be seen as the clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamor of a clamb.

B. The lower court’s determination as to the prosecutor’s assertion: (i) the Defendant came to know of the fact that F, the husband of the victim before the instant case, became aware of the fact that F, who was the husband of the victim before the instant case, had established a sexual relationship by threatening the wife of the Defendant several times; and (ii) the Defendant called F, but called F, was the victim who was the victim but was the victim instead of F, thereby threatening F, to the Defendant’s wife.