A. In the absence of a common sense with the victim, the Defendant thought that the victim was a long-distance telephone, and did not specifically notify the victim of any harm and injury so that he/she had expressed a serious sentiment in the absence of a common sense. Since there was no circumstance for the victim to feel any fear, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent of intimidation, and the Defendant’s speech does not constitute the elements of the crime of intimidation.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a guilty verdict of mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, and the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges by taking account of various circumstances based on the legal doctrine as stated in

In full view of the circumstances duly explained by the court below and the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of this case, i.e., finding the victim about the content of harm and injury notified by the defendant, and having given notice of such harm and injury several times, and the victim stated to the effect that it was difficult for the defendant to find the victim and find him/her out his/her address because the defendant, who does not have awareness of his/her address, could not cause any harm or injury (the eight pages and 11 pages of the evidence record), and that the defendant requested the police station near the actual residential area to protect the victim (the 12 pages of the evidence record), it is difficult to view that the content of harm and injury notified by the defendant is sufficient to cause fear to the general public, and it is merely an indication of simple emotional humiliation or temporary labor.

In addition, the defendant's perception and acceptance that such a threat of harm is sufficient, and the intention or desire to realize harm is not necessary, so the defendant's intention can also be recognized as a crime of intimidation.