The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal principle that the Defendant “hested the victim,” but it does not mean that it was a means to threaten the victim, but it was merely a simple bath expressed by a temporary serious appraisal while communicating with the victim under dispute circumstances, such as infringement of the right to enjoy sunshine due to the victim’s architectural act, etc., and thus, did not intend to feel fear of the victim or to bring the victim’s body to the victim.

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the conviction of unjust sentencing is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order for a crime of intimidation to be established against a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the content of harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to a person generally in light of the following circumstances: (a) it does not require the other party to feel realistically; (b) as long as the other party perceived the meaning of harm and injury by notifying the other party of such harm and injury, the elements of the crime shall be satisfied and should be interpreted to have been completed regardless of whether the other party actually made fear, regardless of whether the other party realistically made fear.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007). Also, in relation to a crime of intimidation, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of the crime of intimidation is a threat of harm to such an extent.