In light of the content of text messages, it cannot be deemed that a notice of harm that may cause fears has been given.

Intimidation in a crime of intimidation in a judgment of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles regarding sentencing means generally informing a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fear. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element is not required to actually realize the intent or desire to realize the harm and danger that the actor is aware of and citing that it would cause harm and injury to such an extent.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the above legal principles, the content of the text message sent by the defendant to the complainant constitutes a threat of harm to the extent that the defendant would normally cause fear, and the defendant's awareness of the above degree of harm and injury is accepted, and thus the intention of intimidation is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In determining the illegality of sentencing, when considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was arguinging with the complainant who is the neighboring land owner for a long time; (b) the Defendant was not guilty of a fine or heavier punishment; and (c) the Defendant’s text message sent by the Defendant, the nature of the offense is not easy; (d) considering the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the offense; and (e) considering the sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, motive, means and consequence of the offense; and (e) the circumstances after the offense

Therefore, the defendant's status.