The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (a factual error) did not think at all that the Defendant would harm the victim at the time of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant, at the lower court, asserted the same as the grounds for appeal of this case, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances revealed from the evidence, namely, ① the defendant sent text messages with the same contents as the facts stated in the crime in the judgment below, ② the defendant stated in this court that he received a summary order of a fine of KRW 500,000 as stated in the judgment of the court below for the crime of assaulting the victim, and ③ intimidation in the crime of intimidation means giving notice of harm to the extent that it may cause a person to feel a fear, generally. Thus, the intention or desire as a subjective constituent element of the crime is not necessary for the actor to actually realize the harm and injury that the actor knew and accepts. However, if it is objectively evident that the perpetrator's speech and behavior merely merely expresses emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion, and there is no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, intimidation or intimidation cannot be acknowledged.

The issue of whether an act of intimidation or intimidation was intended should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act, and the relationship with the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 191), and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim.