A misunderstanding of facts (as to the special intimidation in the judgment of the original court), the Defendant merely cited excessive activities as a hand due to the influence of philophones administered by an Acopon on the date stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not commit any harm to the victim. The Defendant merely stated whether the victim operating cosmetics can be headed or not, and whether the coffees in the cosmetic room can be headed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In order to establish a crime of intimidation, there is a concrete threat of harm to the extent that it may be deemed that the crime may be at least possible, and there is a threat of harm and injury. There is a threat of harm and injury.

Even if the crime of intimidation is not established if it is to the extent acceptable by social norms in light of the custom and ethical concept of society, etc., however, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation in such meaning should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act, and the relationship with the victim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2102, May 10, 1991; 2005Do329, Mar. 25, 2005). In addition, the act of notifying harm and injury in a crime of intimidation is ordinarily based on language, or may, where relevant, notify the harm and injury.

(See Supreme Court Decision 74Do2727 Decided October 7, 1975, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146 Decided September 10, 2009). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, i.e., the Defendant’s failure to perform the beauty room operated by the victim, notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant was out of the beauty room operated by the victim.