All the costs of the trial by the original instance and the trial by the party shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The victim D did not feel any threat or danger due to the Defendant’s action, and the victim retired from his/her own will rather than by intimidation by the Defendant. Rather, the Defendant’s harassment, such as intimidation, is being committed by the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the intimidation and attack in this case is erroneous by mistake.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) declared by the lower court as to the wrongful argument of sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of intimidation as to the assertion of fact, the content of harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people when comprehensively considering the various circumstances before and after the act, such as the tendency of the offender and the other party, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and the degree of friendship and status between the offender and the other party. However, as long as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying harm and injury, the other party does not necessarily require fear. As long as the other party recognizes its meaning, regardless of whether the other party realistically raised fear, the requirement is satisfied and the crime of intimidation should be interpreted to have been committed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 201). In addition, the means of intimidation as a means of a crime of intimidation means to notify harm and injury that are likely to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the realization of harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require the other party to exercise his right as an unlawful means.