A. In fact, it is true that the Defendant made the victim make the same remarks as the entries in the facts charged in this case, but it does not constitute a threat of harm that may cause harm and harm to the general public, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles that recognized the Defendant as a threat of simple abusiveism and notification of harm and injury and injury.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The judgment of the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's speech and behavior against the victim falls under a threat of harm that is generally likely to cause a person to feel a fear. 2) The crime of intimidation in the trial of the political party refers to a threat of harm that is generally likely to cause a person to feel a fear. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of the subjective constituent element of the crime generally refers to a threat of harm that is likely to cause a person to feel a threat of harm. As such, the intention or desire to actually realize the harm that the actor knew, accepts, and actually realize, is not necessary. However, if the actor's speech and behavior is merely a mere emotional expression or temporary expression of harm, and it is objectively evident that there is no intention to harm in light of 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.

Supreme Court Decision 2006No. 25 Decided August 25, 2006