A. The Defendant alleged a misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as stated in the facts charged in this case, and received money from the victims, but the Defendant did not receive money from the victims, but was compensated by the victims for part of 19,222,50 won of compensation not received from the Namyang-si around 2013, and the Defendant did not demand money from the victims as stated in the facts charged in this case. ② The Defendant did not demand money from the victims as stated in the facts charged in this case. ③ The Defendant merely did not assault or threaten the victims, and did not commit assault or threaten the victims, ④ the contents of the banner and the saves posted by the Defendant are true and correct, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there was a threat of harm and injury to the local housing association.

However, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unfair sentencing (limited to eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as a means of a crime of intimidation refers to the notification of harm that may objectively restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, taking into account specific circumstances into account, and even if the notification is not illegal, it may be a harm and injury. The notification of harm and injury is sufficient if it does not necessarily require that it would be made by means of a clearly specified method, and it would lead the other party to a harm and injury, depending on the special circumstances with the victim (Supreme Court).