The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of misunderstanding of facts demanded that the victim of misunderstanding of facts make a talk about the criminal case in progress by telephone to the defendant, and only the defendant made a reply.

The defendant did not intend to take money by threatening the victim at the time, and there is no fact that the victim notified the harm and injury likely to be frighten.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Intimidation, which is the means of a misunderstanding of facts, refers to a threat of harm and injury likely to be hot to the extent that the freedom of decision-making is restricted, or that it interferes with the freedom of decision-making. The threat of harm and injury is sufficient if the other party becomes aware of harm and injury through speech or behavior even if it is not necessarily explicitly provided, and it may be indirectly made through a third party other than the mosor. In cases where the perpetrator demands delivery of property or pecuniary benefits by using illegal consolation money based on his occupation, status, etc., and the other party fails to comply with the demand, the threat of harm and injury is also a threat of harm and injury even in cases where the perpetrator causes an oral appearance that there is a risk of unfair disadvantage if the other party fails to comply with the demand (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do709, May 13, 2003; 2004Do1565, Jul. 15, 2005) and the evidence duly accepted by the court below’s decision.