The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite assertion) lies in sending text messages identical to each of the facts charged of this case to the purport that the Defendant abides by the victim’s promise. In light of the victim’s behavior at the time, it is difficult to see that the victim satisfed with the above text messages, and thus, it does not constitute intimidation.

2. Determination

A. The crime of intimidation is a dangerous crime whose protected legal interest is the freedom to make a decision, and in order to establish a crime of intimidation, the content of the harm and danger notified should be sufficient to cause fears to ordinary people, in full view of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and the degree of friendship and status between the offender and the other party. However, it does not require the other party to feel fear in reality, and it does not require the other party to feel fear in reality. The other party’s notification of harm and harm to the end of the crime of intimidation

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, surrounding circumstances, the victim’s status, and the contents and overall purport of each text message of this case at the time of dispute with the victim and child support issues, it is reasonable to view that sending a text message to the victim to the effect that “the victim would inform him of such fact to the school where the victim works as the teacher, and would put him at a disadvantage,” constitutes a threat of harm and injury sufficient to cause fear to the public. Therefore, insofar as the victim clearly recognized the purport of the text.