A. The instant case is merely a fact-finding that, despite the Defendant’s monetary claim against the victim, the victims not only avoid the repayment of the obligation, but also requests repayment of the obligation because there is no response to the request for repayment. The Defendant’s letter sent by him does not constitute a crime of extortion by demanding repayment or demanding response.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution in August, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As a means of attacking a factual doctrine, intimidation is a threat of harm likely to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. It is sufficient to say that malicious notice does not necessarily require to be made by a clearly indicated method, and that it would cause harm to the other party by language or impulse, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1565, Jul. 15, 2005). Furthermore, even if a legitimate right holder is a legitimate right holder, it does not interfere with the establishment of a crime of conflict if the means and method of exercising such right exceed the permissible scope under the social norms (see Supreme Court Decisions 84Do2644, Sep. 10, 1985; 95Do2801, Mar. 22, 1996). According to the circumstances acknowledged by the court below that the defendant lawfully restricted the freedom of decision-making and investigated by the victim to the extent that it interferes with the victim's freedom of decision-making and evidence.