The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to guarantee the return of the cost of a motor vehicle in mistake, only the victim obtained consent from the victim D, and there is no fact that the victim has taken the vehicle by threatening the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As a means of a mistake of facts, intimidation refers to the threat of harm that is likely to restrict the freedom of decision-making or obstruct the freedom of decision-making, and the threat of harm is sufficient if it does not necessarily require to be made by the method of specification, and it is sufficient to have the other party aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or impulse.

(2) On May 13, 2003, in light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the following facts are revealed: (a) The Defendant: (b) the Defendant sent the victim a phone call to the victim D; (c) the Defendant did not wish to purchase the vehicle; and (d) the Defendant thought that the Defendant would not have previously sold the vehicle to C; (c) the victim would have been refunded the price of the substitute vehicle; and (d) the Defendant sent the documents cited as the “this son?” and sent the victim’s face to the effect that the refund cannot be made; and (d) the Defendant would have the key of the vehicle back to the Defendant; and (e) the Defendant would have deducted the key of the vehicle that the Defendant was on his own purchase; and (e) the Defendant would have returned the vehicle from the vehicle to the victim, and (e) the Defendant would have concealed the key of the vehicle.