The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

10,000 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the defendant made a picture in the course of dialogue with the victim, but the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the absence of intimidation with a view to causing harm to life and body, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts, and the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable (one year and six months of imprisonment).

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake, it can be acknowledged that the defendant received a request from the victim to return the amount of continuous investment, and the defendant made a statement of the same content as the facts stated in the judgment of the court below. In light of the content, the statement made by the defendant is a threat of harm to the extent that it may cause fear to the victim. Although the defendant made the above statement without the intention to cause actual harm and harm, even if the defendant made the above statement without the intention to cause actual harm and harm, it does not seem to constitute an objective case where the defendant's speech and behavior does not objectively obvious that there is no intention to harm. As long as the defendant notified the victim of harm and harm as above, the crime of intimidation is established even if the defendant did not have the intention to realize the harm and harm actually

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was punished five times by a five-time sentence due to the administration of Mepta, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes again during the repeated crime period, the Defendant committed several intimidations on several occasions, and the Defendant denied the fact of the crime of intimidation and did not reflect it, etc., the crime’s nature is not exceptionally considered.

However, it is active in the investigation process by providing information about the administration of the Mepta, the number of times when the defendant administered the Mepta.