The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The Defendant did not mention the victim as stated in the facts charged (no one is found at the victim’s home or phoneed). B. Legal doctrine is that even if the Defendant made the same speech as stated in the facts charged, it is sufficiently acceptable in light of social norms, and thus does not constitute intimidation.

2. Determination

A. There is a fact that the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, stated to the effect that the victim C consistently conforms to the facts charged from the investigative agency to the lower court, namely, ① the victim C had consistently stated to the effect that it was consistent with the facts charged; ② the Defendant also stated to the effect that the victim was suffering from a conflict with the victim due to singing at the time of the instant case; and that the Defendant stated that the victim was “to singing up in the face with the victim,” and ③ the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “I would bring about a general restaurant which is not reported, unless it is resolved well with the victim.”

In light of the statement (Evidence No. 114 of the evidence record), the fact that the defendant made the statement to the victim as stated in the judgment of the court below can be recognized on the date of the decision of the court

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principles, the term “Intimidation” required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and degree of friendship (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). The lower court is the lower court.