The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the victim E-driving, the Defendant actually inflicted an injury upon the victim’s car, and the victim did not take any measure, and thereafter, the police did not cause a traffic accident upon the victim’s request during the process of undergoing an investigation into the confrontation with the victim.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty was erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and in the misunderstanding of legal principles, although the defendant did not attack the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Intimidation as a means of attacking the relevant legal doctrine refers to notifying a threat that may cause harm and injury to the point of restricting the freedom of decision-making or obstructing the freedom of executing the decision-making. Bad faith notification is sufficient if it does not necessarily require to be made by the method of specification, and it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or communication. Although the notification of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, if the means and method of realizing the right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, even if it is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, it shall be deemed that the crime of attack was commenced. Here, whether certain act specifically exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and method pursued (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do6809, Sept. 13, 2013). b)

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.