2. In the crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act, the crime of intimidation is a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who becomes the other party. Whether such threat is a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances before and after the act, including 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 (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1489, Feb. 18, 2016). In light of the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, it is insufficient to recognize that even if the Defendant had expressed a desire to the victim at the time of the instant case and sold it, such an act was likely to cause fear to the victim.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① Both arms and arms of the Defendant do not contain any part under the elbow (the facts charged purport that the Defendant puts "Ticks cut off" on the part of the Defendant, but this differs as confirmed in the court of the first instance). The Defendant puts his arms into the center of the shoulder.

② The victim D and D’s witness of the first instance trial (D’s spouse) stated to the effect that “at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had not worn a water ( rubber arms) and the instant clothes retail was pul block.”

③ The width of the alley in which the instant case occurred is three meters, and D stated to the effect that “the Defendant was replaced with his arms and continued to be in line with it,” and K was also replaced with the Defendant as she was.