All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to noise issues caused by election oil, and the Defendant was arrested in a state where he did not give notice of harm to a specific party. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, which determined that the instant crime was committed. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment with labor based on the principal sentence) sentenced by the lower court, which sentenced the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. In relation to a crime of intimidation, the term “Intimidation” generally refers to notifying a person of harm to the extent of causing fears, and there is no limitation on the content of the harm so notified, that is, the content of the harm that is, the content of the harm that is likely to be infringed, or the subject of enjoyment of the legal interest. Therefore, even if a threat of harm that infringes on the legal interest of the victim himself/herself or his/her relatives or any other third party, as well as his/her relatives, is closely related to the victim himself/herself, and the content of the harm is sufficient to cause fears to the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1017, Jul. 15, 2010). 2) If it is sufficient to have the victim aware that the harm was likely to cause harm and injury to the victim by means of language or behavior, it may constitute a crime of intimidation.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do7095, Dec. 10, 2002).

The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The lower court’s judgment on this.