All appeals filed by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A and B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (in fact-finding) did not commit a crime of joint intimidation which the court below found guilty.

B. In light of the consistent statements made by the public prosecutor (an erroneous determination of facts against Defendant A and B and unfair sentencing) in light of the fact that the statements made by the victim are consistent, the facts of the crime of joint intimidation committed by Defendant A and B, which the court below acquitted, are sufficiently recognized (in fact-finding), and considering these points, the sentence against the above Defendants (a fine of two million won: Defendant A and a fine of one million won: 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation as provided in Article 283 of the Criminal Act to determine the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party. Whether such a threat of harm or injury constitutes a threat of harm or injury must be determined by comprehensively considering various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, the relationship between the offender and the other party, and the degree of friendship. It does not require that the other party actually feel fear. As long as the other party perceived the meaning of the threat of harm or harm by notifying the other party of such degree of harm or harm, the elements of the crime shall be satisfied and the crime of intimidation shall be interpreted to have been completed regardless of whether

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A and the victim, at the time of committing the instant crime, were in a hostile relationship with each other with financial disputes arising from the liquidation of the said business relationship. ② The place where the instant crime was committed, ② one victim, such as building walls, at the time of the instant crime as a set-to-face parking lot, is the Defendant and H.