The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The Defendant did not have any intention to threaten the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the background leading up to the victim’s telephone call, the contents of conversation between the Defendant and the victim, and the Defendant’s attitude at the time of the above speech and behavior, etc., the court below held that the above speech and behavior constitutes a notice of harm sufficient to cause fear to the other party, and that it cannot be deemed objectively clear that the circumstances that the Defendant did not have any intent to harm the Defendant at the time of the speech and behavior are objectively evident.

Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm to an extent that may cause a person to feel fear, and thus, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm and injury that an actor knows and cites that the perpetrator informss such a degree of harm and injury. However, if the perpetrator’s speech and behavior is merely a mere emotional or temporary expression of labor, and it is objectively evident that there is no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the perpetrator’s act of intimidation or temporary expression of labor cannot be acknowledged, but whether there was such intent or intent shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the surrounding circumstances, such as the background leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 191).