The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles notified the victim of harm and injury to the victim’s change of the car line.

It is difficult to see the act written in the facts charged as a crime of intimidation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, in order to establish a crime of intimidation, the contents of harm and injury notified should be sufficient to cause fear to the general public when comprehensively taking into account the 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 that the other party feel feel realistically. As long as the other party perceived its meaning by notifying harm and injury, the elements of the crime of intimidation, regardless of whether the other party feel feel realistically, shall be interpreted as satisfying the requirements of intimidation and leading up to the length of the crime of intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6064, Oct. 27, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5779, Sept. 29, 200).