Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Intimidation as a means of the crime of attacking judgment refers to notifying the harm and injury likely to be frighten to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or obstructs the freedom of decision-making, and the realization of the harm and injury so notified refers to the case where the threat and injury does not necessarily require its illegality and is used as a means of realizing the right, if it frights the other party by means of intimidation, and the method of exercising the right exceeds the permissible level or limit under social norms, the crime of attack is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6406, Oct. 11, 207). The court below found the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, Defendant A again requested Defendant B to have a tobacco victim’s frightt operated at the beginning of December 29, 2014, and the Defendants purchased the victim’s frightt and frightt purchased the victim’s fright at the second time after the victim’s fright.