The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) acknowledged the fact that the Defendant made the same speech as the facts charged in the instant case, but there was no intention to give notice of harm and injury due to the emotional expression from the mind of continuing the meeting with the victim. 2) Even if the Defendant was guilty, the lower court’s punishment (fine 7 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the term "in the crime of intimidation" means that a person gives notice of harm to an extent that would normally cause fear to an ordinary person. Thus, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of a crime does not require an actor's awareness of and citing that the perpetrator informss of harm to such degree (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 1991) and the other party's actual intent or desire to realize the harm so notified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 199). As long as the other party recognizes its meaning by giving notice of harm to such an extent, the constituent element shall be satisfied and interpreted to reach the length of the crime of intimidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). 2).

Examining records in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

Accordingly, the defendant's status.