A. The text message sent by the Defendant (as to the judgment of the court below of first instance) is merely a simple warning demanding the resolution of the problem, and its content is abstract, so it cannot be deemed as a threat of harm that may cause fears to the victim. The victim did not actually feel feel, and the Defendant did not have any intent to cause harm to the victim and did not actually cause harm to the victim. Accordingly, the Defendant’s act does not constitute intimidation.

B. Comprehensively taking account of each evidence submitted by the prosecutor (as to the judgment below of the second instance), the Defendant sold KRW 26 million to the victim without notifying the victim of the fact that the purchase price for the land F in Seogpo City (hereinafter “instant land”) was KRW 37 million.

It is sufficiently recognized that the victim was aware of the existence of a claim equivalent to the purchase price exceeding 26 million won, and that the victim was unaware of the amount of KRW 10.65 million (the amount excluding KRW 26 million paid by the victim and KRW 3.5 million) as he/she was unaware of the existence of a claim equivalent to the purchase price exceeding 26 million.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the term “Intimidation” in the relevant legal doctrine refers to a threat of harm to an extent that would normally cause fear to an ordinary person. Whether there was such a threat or intent should be determined by considering not only the appearance of an act, but also the circumstances leading to such an act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do2311, Jun. 15, 2006, etc.). For the establishment of a crime of intimidation, the content of the harm and injury so notified, as well as the mutual relation between the perpetrator and the other party, such as the relation between the perpetrator and the other party.