The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts about the guilty) that the defendant did not have actually taken a video image, and send text messages as shown in this part of the facts charged;

There is no fact of intimidation against the victimized person.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of intimidation based on the statements of the victim who is not consistent and reliable, has an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act, generally refers to a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who becomes the other party. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury must be determined by taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, including the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and degree of friendship (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007, etc.). (b) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, (i) Defendant voluntarily sent the victim to South Korea around February 18, 2016.

^^‘ 라는 취지의 문자 메시지를 보낸 사실은 시인하고 있는 점( 증거기록 제 40 쪽), ② 피해자는 수사기관부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 피고인이 촬영을 하였는지 여부는 확인하지 못하였으나 피고 인과의 성관계 도중 피고인이 핸드폰을 들고 있는 것을 보았고, 촬영을 했을 수도 있었다는 생각이 들었다고

(3) The victim has a video image on her husband’s computer even from the denial of the defendant, and the victim is not the victim when there is no suspicion.

The defendant's cell phone restoration is actually a part of the victim's cell phone restoration photograph, or ...