A. Although there was a fact that the Defendant, by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, made the victim’s apartment door, sound the victim’s apartment door, there was no fluorous speech, such as “the victim”, as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

Even if the Defendant made the victim’s speech, it does not constitute intimidation merely because the Defendant merely made emotional or verbal abuse.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of intimidation.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant's statement as to the facts charged at the time of the instant case is recognized.

In addition, according to the above evidence, the defendant found the victim's house while under the influence of alcohol that the victim resists the noise problem between the floors, and found the victim's house. ② The defendant's act stated in the facts charged of this case by the defendant seems to be sufficient to have caused the victim to feel a possibility of harm and harm and feel a fear of harm.

Therefore, the court below is just in finding guilty of the above facts charged, and there is a fact as alleged by the defendant and the defense counsel.