The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts is merely a mere expression of a certain emotional desire or a temporary decentralization by demanding the death of the Defendant to rape B and his family members and by sending a letter of recommendation for the acceptance of the rape crime. 2) The imprisonment (ten months of imprisonment) declared by the lower court on the ground of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant alleged to the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, but the lower court rejected the assertion and convicted all of the charges of this case on the following grounds. First, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was raped against B.

In addition, a threat in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel a threat, and thus, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that the perpetrator knew that he knows that he knows such harm and injury to the extent that it may cause such fear. However, if the perpetrator’s speech and behavior is merely a mere emotional expression or temporary labor union and it is objectively evident that he/she has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged as an act of intimidation or a temporary labor union, but whether there was an intent of intimidation or a threat shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the surrounding circumstances, such as the background leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 191). In other words, the circumstances revealed by each evidence of the judgment, namely, the defendant's prior preparation for the victim at the Police Station around April 8, 2016.