The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) stated that the Defendant sent a text message expressing the victimized person as stated in the facts charged of this case, but even though the Defendant’s act did not constitute intimidation and did not intend to threaten the Defendant, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Intimidation in a crime of intimidation means a threat of harm to an extent generally likely to cause fear to a person. The subjective constituent elements thereof include the perception that an actor knows that such a threat is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2102, May 10, 1991; 2006Do2311, Jun. 15, 2006). In order to constitute a crime of intimidation, the content of the harm notified should be deemed as a crime of intimidation and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, mutual relation between the perpetrator and the other party, such as the degree of friendship and status, etc. between the third party and the perpetrator, if any, and the relationship between the third party and the perpetrator, etc. before and after the act, it should be sufficient to cause fear to the general public. However, such subjective constituent elements should not cause fear to the other party to the crime of intimidation to the extent that it is actually required to be duly adopted by the collegiate body. 207.