All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges of this case, although the Defendant did not have abused the amount by threatening the victim as stated in the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intimidation of the crime of intimidation.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the defendant, the prosecutor) is too heavy or unreasonable. The punishment sentenced by the court below (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order 120 hours) is too heavy.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm likely to be frighten to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or interferes with the freedom of decision-making. It is sufficient to say that the threat is not necessarily required to be made by the method of specification, and would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or dynamics. Although the notification of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing legitimate rights, if the means and method of realizing rights exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, even if it is used as a means of realizing legitimate rights, it shall be deemed that the crime of threat was commenced. Here, whether certain acts exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms should be determined after comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and method pursued, and means selected (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 1995). (b) The judgment below and the evidence duly adopted at the court below and the victim, as seen below, can be found as follows: