The defendant shall be innocent.

I. The Defendant is a person who engages in crowdfunding business.

At around 21:00 on September 21, 2012, the Defendant took a bath to the Defendant on the ground that D (the son, 43 years old) made a telephone call to the Defendant to resist the defective construction of the apartment, and that D (the son, 43 years old) resisted the defective construction of the apartment, and the Defendant “influenced the Defendant,” she was able to see whether the fluent fri infrien, the chrone test, and the fluent fluor, within the territory of the Defendant.”

II. In the crime of intimidation, the term "in the crime of intimidation" refers to a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel fear, and as such, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require the intent or desire to actually realize the harm that the perpetrator knows and citing that the perpetrator knows that it would cause such harm and injury. However, if the perpetrator's speech and behavior is merely a mere emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that there is no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the perpetrator's act of intimidation or temporary dispersion is a mere expression of harm and that the perpetrator has no intention to harm.

Therefore, the issue of whether there was the intent of intimidation or intimidation in the above meaning should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the background leading to such act and the relationship with the victim in consideration of the surrounding circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546 delivered on August 25, 2006). In other words, the following circumstances revealed by the record, namely, the defendant made a statement that the defendant had no intention to threaten the execution of a fake construction work under the influence of a telephone call by the investigative agency to the point of view that the defendant had no intention to threaten the execution of a fake construction work, and that the defendant had already been bread under the influence of alcohol at the time of making a statement such as the statement in the facts charged.