A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (an attempted attempted crime) did not mean on September 11, 2014 that the Defendant would report to the National Tax Service by telephone to the victim.

The letter sent by the defendant to the victim around 11:40 on September 17, 2014 is merely a moral criticism against the victim, and it does not constitute intimidation, in light of the developments leading up to or overall contents and purport of the document.

2) Improper sentencing

B. Prosecution’s improper sentencing

2. Determination

A. As for the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, intimidation refers to a threat of harm and injury likely to be hot enough to restrict a person’s freedom of decision-making or interfere with a person’s freedom to enforce a will. Bad faith notification is sufficient if it is not necessarily required to be made by the method of specification, and if it is sufficient to have the other party recognize that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or fashion. Also, even if not directly, it may be indirectly made through a third party other than the person who is the person who is the party to be threatened. If an actor demands the delivery of property or pecuniary profit by using an unlawful above age based on his occupation, status, etc., and if the other party fails to comply with such demand, it is also a threat of harm and injury.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below (in particular, victim D stated the facts of damage from the investigative agency to the court of the court below, which is supported by the situation of the transaction between the victim and the defendant at the time, the circumstances of the termination of the contract, and the contents of the letter sent by the defendant, etc.), the purport of the court below is to report to the National Tax Service, if the defendant called the victim on September 11, 2014 to the victim and maintains the total sales agency contract with the defendant as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment below.