The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was that the Defendant sent text messages to the victim as stated in the facts constituting a crime of crime in the lower judgment. However, the crime of intimidation is not established since the victim did not feel fear.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of intimidation, the content of the harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people in light of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the relation between the perpetrator and the other party, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, friendship and status between the perpetrator and the other party, etc., and the relationship between the third party and the perpetrator, etc., if the harm and injury was notified by the third party, it should not be enough to cause fear to ordinary people. However, as the other party is aware of its meaning by notifying the harm and injury to that degree, it does not require that the other party realistically feel fear. As long as the other party knew of its meaning, regardless of whether the other party realistically made fear, the elements of the crime of intimidation should be interpreted to have been met and the length of the crime of intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606 delivered on September 28, 2007).

The content of “fluoring in the house” includes the content that the victim’s wife actually operates the National Institute of Practical Music Research, and ④ the content of the text message itself “fluoring the victim’s house” or “fluoring the victim’s death.”