A. Although the victim of mistake of facts stated in the investigative agency that he did not feel fear due to the defendant at the time of the instant case, the judgment of the court below convicting the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In a mistake of fact-finding claim, a crime of intimidation generally notifies a person who has become the other party of any harm sufficient to cause fear. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and the degree of friendship. Meanwhile, the term “comprehion” in this context refers to an infringement of legal interests. Even if the harm or injury does not necessarily infringe on the victim’s legal interests, but is closely related to the victim himself/herself and a third party, if the content of the harm or injury is likely to cause fear to cause fear to the victim (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012). The notice of harm or injury must be sufficient to cause fear to the person, but it does not necessarily cause fear to the other party, regardless of whether it actually requires such fear (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 20060, supra. 2060).