The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that misunderstanding of facts: (a) the Defendant constantly confirmed that the manager G has stolen money in the frequency of this case; and (b) stated that he would report to the police without agreement on the conditions presented by the Defendant; and (c) stated that he may be detained with the Defendant’s wife E, as stated in the judgment of the lower court.

However, this does not constitute intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation, because it is merely merely informing the police of the fact that the defendant who was damaged by the crime of theft was entitled to report by legitimate exercise of rights and the situation that may arise in such case.

In addition, it is clear that not only the victim did not drink the above speech and behavior of the defendant, but also the victim could be detained if the appearance of the theft crime committed by him is revealed, it is evident that he voluntarily affixed the seal on the written agreement and the written confirmation of the settlement of retirement pay, and paid the additional agreed amount.

Therefore, although the defendant could not be deemed to have committed a crime jointly with E, the judgment of the court below which found him guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of a suspended sentence in one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Intimidation as a means of a crime of misunderstanding of facts refers to the threat of harm that is likely to impose a restriction on the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the threat of harm is sufficient if it is sufficient to have the other party aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or facing, without necessarily requiring that it would be done by the method of specification, and even if it is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, the method of realizing the right is the case.