A. The Defendant did not agree with the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that the victim did not appear to have known the company of the fact that he did not pay money to the victim.

Even if the defendant made such a statement, when the defendant got divorced due to his wife and the victim's improper act, the defendant made a temporary and serious statement, and as such, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime as part of the legitimate exercise of rights, as it has the damage claim from the victim due to the failure of marriage.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Intimidation as a means of a crime of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles refers to the threat of harm and injury likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and even if such threat and injury are used as a means of realizing legitimate rights, if the means and method of realizing rights exceed the permissible level and scope under the generally accepted social norms, it shall be deemed that the implementation of a crime of rapion has commenced. Whether certain acts exceed the permissible level and scope under the generally accepted social norms should be determined in full view of the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and method pursued.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do2422 delivered on March 10, 1995). First of all, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, if the defendant paid KRW 30 million to the victim, the father of the defendant would not find the victim's company. On June 1, 2015, the defendant made telephone conversations with the victim's workplace commercial company and again made telephone conversations with the victim and did not reach the company.