A. The content of the message sent by the Defendant to the victim regarding intimidation is merely the intent of making efforts to recover a matrimonial relationship, and cannot be deemed as a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear. 2) Even if the Defendant sent a photograph and message to E, as in the facts charged, to the victim, as in the case of defamation, there is no possibility of spreading it to an unspecified or many unspecified persons, even if the Defendant sent such a photograph and message to E.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of intimidation as to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of intimidation shall be established by comprehensively taking into account the tendency of the offender and the other party, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, mutual relationship between the offender and the other party, status, etc., and the relationship between the third party and the third party before and after the act. However, if the injured party has been notified of harm by a third party, it shall be sufficient to cause a person to feel a fear. However, the other party does not have to feel a fear in reality, and as long as the other party has recognized its meaning by notifying the harm to such degree, it shall be interpreted that the elements of intimidation are satisfied regardless of whether the other party has generated a fear in reality, and it shall be interpreted that the crime of intimidation is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). The lower court lawfully adopted and investigated evidence, namely, the Defendant is found to have discovered the victim’s file and the victim’s sound.