A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below convicted the victim D of intimidation, although it cannot be viewed as a threat of harm and injury likely to cause fear. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on intimidation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act, generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury must be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the details of the harm or harm notified, the method of expression, the background leading up to the threat of harm or injury, the background leading up to the threat, the inclination of the offender and the other party, the surrounding circumstances at the time of the notification, the relationship and status between the perpetrator and the other party, and the degree of friendship (see Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1017, Jul. 15, 2010; 201Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012). As long as the other party has been aware of the meaning of such threat by notifying the harm or injury, it shall not be interpreted as satisfying the elements of intimidation, regardless of whether the other party has realistically promulgated it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007). Based on the above legal principle, the health unit pertaining to intimidation among the facts charged in the instant case, and the Defendant left the Ecar Center operated by the victim D to repair his/her own vehicle, but if he/she did not refund his/her repair cost, he/she is the reporter and the victim D.