The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles), the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the circumstances leading to the dialogue, the contents of the conversation, the response and attitude of the victim, and the atmosphere at the time, etc., it is difficult to view the words as stated in the facts charged of this case as constituting a threat of harm and injury. Therefore, the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case has

2. Determination

A. “Intimidation” required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation in the relevant legal doctrine generally refers to a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury is determined by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances before and after the act, including the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and the degree of friendship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012). (b) In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and duly examined in the lower court’s determination, it is difficult to find that the words as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case as described in the evidence is likely to inflict harm on the victim’s life and body, and constitutes a threat of harm or injury sufficient to cause fear to the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is justified.

1) In 2015, the Defendant continued to contact an elementary school group’s Internet community, an elementary school group’s Internet community, with the victim (F) who was first love.

On November 18, 2015, the day before the occurrence of the instant case, the victim was suspected of having the victim's identity and the defendant's inhuman identity. The victim called the defendant on the phone and asked him to commit the crime, and the victim was also aware of the victim's inhuman identity.

On the following day, the defendant sent a telephone to the victim as stated in the instant case.