A. The Defendants, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, had Kakao Stockholmting with the victim. However, the Defendant’s mother’s objection to the distribution of the miscarriage that had left the part of the victim’s interest, was merely an emotional expression requesting the victim to refrain from using such a pattern, and did not notify the victim of the harm that could have been promulgated. However, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. In light of the legal principles, Defendant A’s expression of the victim’s anti-human injury constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms. The Defendant, although there was no conspiracy with Defendant B, Apr. 15, 2017, and intimidation on May 24, 2017, the lower court convicted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the legitimate act or joint principal offender.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the expression of harm to an extent that would normally cause fear by viewing it as a general sense. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an actor to actually realize or desire to realize the harm that the actor knew to the extent that it is likely to cause fear. However, if the actor’s speech or behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that he/she has no intent to cause harm in light of surrounding circumstances, it cannot be recognized as an act of intimidation or intimidation, but whether there was an intent of intimidation or temporary dispersion within the above meaning.