Intimidation as a means of a crime of threat refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. Here, the realization of harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it is unlawful, and even if the threat is used as a means of realizing the right, it is deemed that the threat is used as a means of realizing the right, and if the method of realizing the right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms, the crime of threat is established.

(1) The court below held that, in light of the circumstances stated in its ruling, the victim’s statement that the Defendant transferred the instant store by intimidation as stated in the facts charged is reliable, and even if the Defendant believed that the instant notarial deed was valid, if it was transferred to the said store under the same circumstance as indicated in the facts charged, it goes beyond the scope of legitimate exercise of rights, and thereby constitutes intimidation for the crime of public conflict.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violating the logical and empirical rules and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.