The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant sent text messages as stated in the facts charged by mistake of facts to the victim, the above text messages cannot be said to be a notice of harm and injury in light of the content of the text messages and the process of sending them, and there was no intention to threaten the defendant

B. In light of the legal principles, even if the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of intimidation, illegality is dismissed as a justifiable act.

C. The lower court denied the Defendant’s determination on the Defendant’s justifiable act.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term "in the crime of intimidation" means that a person gives notice of harm that may cause fear to the general public. Thus, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of the crime does not require the actor's awareness of and citing that the perpetrator informss such harm to the degree of harm and injury. However, if the perpetrator's speech or behavior is merely merely an expression of simple emotional humiliation or temporary labor, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the perpetrator's intent of intimidation or temporary labor cannot be acknowledged, but whether there was a threat or intent of intimidation in the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the surrounding circumstances, such as the external appearance of the act, the circumstances leading to such act, and the relationship between the victim and the head office (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 1991).