The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Defendant’s driving at the time of the instant case did not reach the degree of threatening the victim by using a dangerous motor vehicle.

(2) The defendant did not have any intention of special intimidation.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In order to establish a crime of intimidation on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the content of harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people, in full view of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and the degree of friendship and status between the offender and the other party. However, it does not require that the other party may feel feel realistically, and as long as the other party recognized its meaning by notifying harm and injury to such an extent that the other party recognized its meaning, the elements of the crime shall be satisfied, regardless of whether the other party realistically caused fear, and it shall be interpreted that the elements of the crime of intimidation are met

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007). Moreover, the act of notifying harm and injury in a crime of intimidation may be a threat of harm and injury, as a matter of ordinary language, or as a case may be, depending on the case where the crime of intimidation is committed.

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court at the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Do2727, Oct. 7, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146, Sept. 10, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 201). (2) In full view of the above legal principles, the fact that the Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, has been threateningd by driving a motor vehicle by changing the car line and making a series of bracks, and the Defendant’s act is considered as such.