A. Although the Defendant cited the problem of the cost of the toilet construction and found the house of the victim C (hereinafter “victim”), the Defendant left the room and went into the room of the victim’s house to dispute with the victim. As such, there is no fact of intimidation with the victim’s house in the room of the victim’s house.

B. In addition, the Defendant did not mean that he would be able to observe the victim’s order, and even if the Defendant said the victim’s speech, the Defendant did not have the intention of intimidation due to the victim’s speech to the extent acceptable by social norms.

C. The act of putting the victim away from the entrance does not constitute “Carrying” of dangerous objects under Article 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

Therefore, even if a defendant's act constitutes intimidation under the Criminal Code, it constitutes a crime of intimidation under the Criminal Code, which constitutes a crime of intimidation. Since the victim expressed his/her intention not to be punished before the court below sentenced the defendant, the prosecution of this case shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

E. Nevertheless, the court below convicted the victim of the facts charged in this case by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence and records duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts or circumstances are recognized.

(1) Around July 2013, the Defendant completed the construction upon request from the victim for a toilet and other artificial instruments. On July 30, 2013, the Defendant sent a written estimate related to the said construction to the victim by e-mail.

The victim who received the above e-mail shall make a telephone to the defendant without paying part of the construction cost on the same day.