The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The instant facts charged that the indictment was unlawful is not specifically specified since the Defendant’s act of intimidation and method are not specifically stated.

misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have not shown the attitude that the defendant tried to move back to another place on his own, and did not seem to cause harm to the victim.

Even if the Defendant committed an act identical to the facts charged in the instant case

Even if the defendant cannot be deemed to have the intention of intimidation, it falls under the indication of temporary decentralization, and in general, it cannot be deemed that it is sufficient to cause fears to ordinary people, and there is no specific notification of harm and danger, and therefore no crime of intimidation is established.

The "date of trial" of a crime referred to in Article 254 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the specific method of the facts charged for the determination of the illegality of an indictment, requires a statement to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription, and the "place" requires a statement to the extent that the territorial jurisdiction can be replaced, and the " method" requires a statement to the extent that the elements of the crime are specified, and the legislative purport of the law requiring the establishment of three specific elements of the facts charged for the crime charged is to limit the scope of defense of the defendant and facilitate defense by limiting the scope of defense of the defendant. Thus, the facts charged shall be stated to the extent that it is distinguishable from the facts that meet the above three specific elements.

(See Supreme Court Decision 89Do112 delivered on June 13, 1989). Since the legal principle is identical to the above, even if there are cases where the date, time, place, method, etc. of a crime are clearly indicated in the indictment, it does not go against the extent that it is necessary to write the above “day”, “place”, and “method”, and the above three types of crimes charged in light of the nature of the crime charged.