The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On March 22, 2012, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case and the judgment of the lower court is as follows: (a) around 18:00 on March 22, 2012, the Defendant threatened the victim by notifying the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Seongbuk-gu Seoul of harm and injury that was going to the rooftop of his/her own residence in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and going to the house of the victim D(56 years of age) residing in the right side of the immediate adjacent house, and “Fraud,” and “spulpants,” and 30 minutes of 30 minutes of spulbling, and by

The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case on the grounds that the aforementioned facts charged are sufficiently recognized according to the evidence duly examined and adopted.

2. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty in the absence of intimidation, such as the summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) as stated in the facts charged, is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation as stipulated in Article 283 of the Criminal Act, of a party member’s judgment, generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party to the crime. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, including the offender’s tendency and the other party’s surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, the relationship between the offender

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012). Of the facts charged in the instant case, the part regarding “Fraud” and “chronchise” that the Defendant notified the victim of the instant facts charged cannot be seen as a notice of harm and injury beyond the level of the abusive view, as seen in the facts charged, and it is difficult to view it as a notice of harm and injury. As such, it becomes a matter of whether intimidation was made as a notice of harm and injury, the said part of the facts charged in the instant case, which states that “I will dissipate gasoline at the victim’s home.” As such, D’s statement that

In accordance with the records of this case.