A. The Defendant of mistake of facts did not say that the victim “in the event that D is a tenant,” the Defendant did not speak to “in the event that D is a tenant,” and the Defendant’s act does not constitute an attack since it did not intend to have D receive the premium, but it did not make D receive the premium.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's attempted crime is erroneous and has affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Intimidation as a means of a crime of attacking a mistake of facts refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the realization of harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it itself is unlawful.

Even if a threat of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing a right, if it is a means of intimidation and makes the other party drink by means of intimidation, and if the means of realizing a right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms, a crime of intimidation is established.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2422 delivered on March 10, 1995, 2007Do6406 delivered on October 11, 2007, etc.). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Health Unit, the lower court and the lower court, and the lower court, in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, attempted to provide the victim with the premium by walking the phone to the victim at the time of the instant case and allowing the victim to deliver the premium to D, and it can be acknowledged that the Defendant attempted to provide the victim with the premium, and that the Defendant had the victim deliver the premium to D with the intention to do so. The Defendant’s intentional or negligent intent to do so is also acknowledged.

(2).