The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around July 9, 2016, the summary of the facts charged: (a) the Defendant: (b) met the victim D (n, 27 years of age); (c) was an unmarried doctor; and (d) introduced the victim as if he/she was an unmarried male; and (c) the victim was aware of the fact that E was born late while he/she ended between E and 1 year.

Around 14:00 on July 14, 2017, the Defendant, while making a telephone call with the victim, had the victim be urged to criticize the introduction of the Vietnam, and thus, the Defendant threatened the victim four times in total, as stated in the list of annexed crimes, such as “Influence, before the death of a son,” and “influence, before the death of a son.”

2. Determination

A. In the case of a crime of intimidation, the expression of harm that may cause fear to a general person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows that it would cause harm to a certain degree. However, if the perpetrator's speech or behavior is merely an emotional expression or temporary union expression, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent of harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it shall not be acknowledged that the perpetrator's intent of intimidation or temporary union is objectively evident. However, whether there was a threat or intent of intimidation within the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances, such as the circumstance leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006). The degree of fear of harm to a person who has been notified and the other party's surrounding position at the time of fear and the other party's surrounding position.