The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant used somewhat excessive expressions that the defendant interested in the course of dispute with the victim.

Even if this is merely a mere expression of emotional humiliation or temporary labor, it is difficult to see that it leads to the threat of harm and injury to the victim, and there was no criminal intent to threaten the victim at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting each of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. Determination

A. In the relevant legal doctrine, a threat means a threat of harm that may cause fear to the general public. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites that such a threat would be likely to cause fear. However, if the perpetrator’s speech or behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary decentralization, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of his surrounding circumstances, it shall not be recognized as an act of intimidation or a threat. However, whether there was an intent of intimidation or a threat within the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act, and surrounding circumstances, such as the victim’s relationship, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1140, Jul. 22, 1986; 200Do325, Oct. 29, 205; 2005Do325, May 205, etc.).

The defendant shall be the victim.