The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant, who did not withdraw a provisional attachment or embezzlement complaint against the victim AD and F, filed a petition with the Prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the Inspection Division of the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the Audit Office of the National Health Insurance Corporation, which the victims work, and a public official of a quasi-judicial agency in the National Ombudsman, would bring a challenge against the victims by using legal knowledge (hereinafter referred to as "certification of the contents of this case") and sent it to the office of the victims, and threatened the victims.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the content of the instant content certification stated in the facts charged constitutes intimidation.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. In the crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act, the term “Intimidation” means notifying a person who becomes the other party of the harm and injury sufficient to cause fears. Whether such threat and injury constitutes a threat of harm and injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the various circumstances before and after the act, including the tendency of the actor and the other party, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship between the perpetrator and the other party, and the degree of friendship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012). (b) The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

1) The victims of the Defendant and the parents of the above schools, who were the principals of alternative schools E schools, were disputing disputes regarding the return of the support payments and the settlement of school expenses paid by the victims.

The victims filed a provisional attachment on January 24, 2013 against the defendant's deposit claim in relation to the dispute. On February 1, 2013, the victims filed a complaint against the defendant for embezzlement.

2) The Defendant did so to the victims.