A. The court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the defendant did not have abused the victims by threatening them as stated in the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The first instance court’s punishment of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As for the assertion of mistake of facts, intimidation as a means of a crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm that is likely to restrict the freedom of decision-making or obstruct the freedom of decision-making. The threat of harm is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the method of specification, and it would lead the other party to a certain harm and injury. Even if it is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, if the means and method of realizing the right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, even if it is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, it shall be deemed that the implementation of the crime of threat was commenced. Whether certain acts exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and method chosen as a whole.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the following facts and circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Health Team and the first instance court in light of the aforementioned legal principles: (a) the Defendant’s threat of victims as indicated in the facts charged; and (b) the Defendant committed an attempted crime. Thus, the court below’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges is justifiable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

(1) Witness D of the first instance court shall be a defendant in the court of first instance.