The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal;

A. Fact misunderstanding 1) The Defendant did not visit the management office on the ground that the damaged person prevents the Defendant from using a broadcast guide, but rather did not visit other Dong representatives.

2) 피고인은 “ 소장 어딨어요

There was only the phrase "," and there was no intention to threaten the victim as stated in the facts charged, stating "no one shall be discarded," and there was no intention to threaten the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts refers to a case where an action of misunderstanding of fact affected the order of the judgment by misunderstanding of fact, and directly or indirectly affected the constituent evaluation of the elements of a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do1665, Sept. 20, 1996). As seen below, insofar as the Defendant’s special crime of intimidation is recognized, what is the reason why the Defendant visited the management office is merely the fact concerning the motive or circumstance of the Defendant’s crime, and does not affect the application of the law or the constituent evaluation of the elements of the crime. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of fact does not fall under the grounds for appeal as prescribed in Article 361-5 subparag. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of fact does not fall under the grounds for appeal under Article 361-

2) 피고인은 원심에서도 당 심에서의 위 2) 항 기재와 같이 주장하였고, 이에 대하여 원심은 적법하게 채택조사한 증거들에 따라 인정되는 그 판시 사정들을 종합하여, 피고인이 사무실에 있던 여직원들에게 “ 야, 소장 어딨어 ”라고 큰소리를 친 후 그곳에 있던 피해자를 발견하고 야구 방망이를 들고 다가가 “ 이 개새끼 죽여 버린다 ”라고 말함으로써 위험한 물건인 야구 방망이를 휴대하여 피해자를 협박한 사실을 인정하여 공소사실을 유죄로 판단하였다.

The crime of intimidation.