The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the defendant, through consultation with the legal office, promoted consultation on behalf of the victim in order to resolve the problem by dialogue with the victim, the defendant's words such as the statement in the facts charged are merely made at a mere answer to the victim's question or the problem-raising period. In addition, the victim's own decision and delivered the agreed money to the defendant in order to solve the problem by agreement prior to the victim's action or investigation, and the defendant's threat or threat of harm and injury was not given. In addition, the defendant did not have threatened the victim or notified of harm and injury, and the defendant's act was conducted within the extent permitted by social norms. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of attack. Thus, 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 court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in August) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Intimidation as a means of a misunderstanding of facts refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the realization of the harm and injury so notified here does not necessarily require that it is unlawful, and is used as a means of realizing the right, even if such threat and injury are used as a means of realizing the right, if the means of realizing the right exceed the permissible level or scope under the social norms, a crime of attack is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6406, Oct. 11, 2007).