A. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle in finding the defendant guilty even though the defendant's act did not constitute a threat of harm to the extent that it could interfere with the victim's freedom of decision-making.

B. Even if one is guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (4 million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Intimidation as a means of a crime of attacking legal principles’ assertion refers to notifying a person’s freedom of decision-making or a threat of harm likely to be frighten enough to obstruct the freedom of decision-making. A threat of harm is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the method of specification, but causes the other party to be aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or impulse. Even if it is used as a means of realizing legitimate right, if the means and method of realizing the right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, the crime of attack shall be commenced. Here, whether certain acts exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, namely, the purpose and method selected as a whole.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6809 Decided September 13, 2013, etc.). As acknowledged by the lower court based on evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court opposed to ① (i) the Defendant’s installation of a banner and the posting of a banner on three occasions each time after the first person’s demonstration; (ii) the Defendant’s act led to the Defendant’s application for a provisional injunction against interference with business; and (iii) the phrase written on a banner.

E Residents shall not accept only one hand of the excreta of the parties.