A. Defendant 1) The lower court found Defendant guilty of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, although there was no fact of intimidation by the victim.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of one year, the community service work for 80 hours, the number of evidence 1) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the content of harm and injury notified should be sufficient to cause fears to ordinary people when comprehensively considering various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and the degree of friendship and status between the perpetrator and the other party. However, as long as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying harm and injury, the elements of the crime should be interpreted to have been met regardless of the other party’s actual fear or not (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). And the defendant’s act of notifying harm and injury in the crime of intimidation is ordinarily based on ordinary language, or where it is possible to lawfully inform the victim of harm and injury by taking advantage of the entire evidence adopted by the court below (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7479, Oct. 7, 1975; 207Do7479, Oct. 27, 2009).

The above act of the defendant generally causes fear to people.