The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against intimidation is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have been accused of threatening the victim through telephone conversationss on two occasions, but there is no fact of threatening the victim by carrying a knife, a dangerous object, and there is no fact of threatening the victim. Thus, the crime of this case can only be considered as a crime of simple intimidation.

However, since the crime of simple intimidation constitutes the crime of non-compliance under Article 283 (3) of the Criminal Act, and the victim expressed his/her intention not to punish the defendant at the investigative agency, the court below should dismiss the prosecution of this case.

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

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the grounds for appeal (as to the assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles), Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act provide that a person who, carrying a dangerous object and intimidation a person shall be punished as a special intimidation. Here, the term “taking a dangerous object” refers to the case where a person carries a dangerous object or carries a person’s body with the intent to use it at the scene of the crime, and the term “Intimidation” generally refers to the case where a person who becomes the other party carries a dangerous object under the intention to use it at the scene of the crime

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do771, Mar. 30, 2017). In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the Defendant threatened the victim “as a dangerous thing, carrying a knife” at the time of the instant case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the part of the defendant's intimidation "to carry dangerous things" is not guilty because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.