The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant merely sent text messages to the victim (hereinafter “the instant text messages”) as stated in the lower judgment, and did not intend to inform the victim’s family members of sexual traffic or to inform the victim of harm and injury.

After sending the instant text message to the victim, the Defendant sent the text message that was immediately deleted to the victim.

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 facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. A. 1) In a mistake of fact, a crime of intimidation means a threat of harm to the extent that a person may feel a fear by generally viewing it as an element of a crime. As such, an intentional act as a subjective element of a crime does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites that the perpetrator is aware of such a degree of harm and injury. However, if the perpetrator's speech and behavior is merely merely a mere expression of an emotional expression or temporary union and it is objectively evident that he/she has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it shall not be recognized as an act of intimidation or a threat. However, whether there was an intent of intimidation or a threat of such meaning should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the surrounding circumstances such as the circumstances leading to such act, relationship with the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329, Mar. 25, 2005). 2)