The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant sent the instant text message corresponding to the victim’s act by a person who was in an internal-related relationship with the Defendant’s wife by widthing the Defendant’s wife and threatening the Defendant. As such, the crime of intimidation is not established as to the extent acceptable in light of the social common sense.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) In the crime of intimidation, an intentional act is a perception of and citing that an actor informss of harm to the extent that it may generally cause fear to a person. Whether there was an intent of intimidation in the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the appearance of the act, but also the circumstances such as the background leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 1991, etc.). Meanwhile, even if a malicious notice was issued, if it is acceptable in light of social customs and ethical sense (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do70, Mar. 10, 1998, etc.). The crime of intimidation is not established (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2102, May 10, 1991, etc.). In full view of the following evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, whether there was a defendant’s intent of intimidation, regardless of whether it actually causes fear of social fear of the victim.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(1)