The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. In addition, even if the Defendant made such remarks as stated in the facts charged, it is difficult to view that there was an intent of intimidation or intimidation since the Defendant’s speech and behavior was merely merely an indication of temporary decentralization.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a crime of intimidation in a mistake of facts or a misapprehension of legal principles’ assertion, the term “Intimidation” means, as a general rule, notifying a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fear. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of a crime does not require the actor’s awareness of and citing that the perpetrator is aware of such risk and injury, and its actual intent or desire to realize the harm and injury so notified. However, if the actor’s speech and behavior is merely merely an expression of a mere emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, the intent of intimidation or intimidation cannot be acknowledged.

The issue of whether there was the intent of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act and the relationship with the victim as a whole.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 Decided March 25, 2005, etc.). In light of these legal principles, this case is one of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the Defendant thought that the victim D would threaten the Defendant’s children to bicycle and exercise violence; (b) and (c) prevented the Defendant from doing so; and (d) imposed the victim’s behavior and demanding an apology against her children.