All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In light of the misunderstanding of legal principles or mistake of facts (the part of the crime of intimidation) and the relationship between the Defendant and E and the situation at the time, etc., the Defendant informed that he would harm E, or caused fear to E.

Although it cannot be seen, the lower court erred by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine or by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (five months of imprisonment, four years of suspended execution) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Intimidation in a crime of intimidation means a threat of harm to an extent that may cause fear to a person generally by viewing it, and an intentional act as a subjective constituent element thereof means a threat of harm to such an extent that the perpetrator knows and accepts such a threat. For a crime of intimidation to be established, the content of harm and injury notified shall be sufficient to cause fear to a person generally in light of various circumstances before and after the act between the perpetrator and the third party, such as the relation between the perpetrator and the other party, the surrounding circumstances at the time of the notification, the degree of friendship and status between the perpetrator and the other party, and the relationship between the third party before and after the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da6670, Jun. 26, 2007). However, the other party does not require to feel realistically, and as long as the other party has recognized its meaning by notifying the harm and injury to such an extent, the crime of intimidation is duly constituted, regardless of whether the other party has realistically promulgated it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007.