The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) was as follows: (a) at the time of the instant case, the Defendant and the victim did not have any obligation relationship as stated in the facts charged; and (b) there was

In addition, with respect to intimidation on December 16, 2012, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant made such remarks to the victim, in addition to the statement of the victim without credibility, and with respect to intimidation on January 9, 2013, the defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged to the victim.

In full view of the various circumstances at the time, there was a threat of harm to the extent that the victim made a fear, or there was an intent to threaten the defendant.

Therefore, the crime of intimidation is not established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted all of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to a crime of intimidation or misconception of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (to the extent of supplement in case of legitimate grounds for appeal). 2. The judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for appeal, which affected the conclusion of the judgment (to the extent of supplement in case of legitimate grounds for appeal).

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant runs the business of importing and selling machinery accessories in the water supply department of Nicera.

Although the Defendant has a debt relationship with the victim E (55 years) (105,000 US$), the Defendant did not repay his/her debt to the victim, thereby raising an objection to the victim’s request for repayment of his/her debt, and on December 16, 2012, with the victim’s telephone from the victim around 21:00 on December 16, 2012, the Defendant discarded the death.

In other words, "the victim made a fear of fear to the victim," and the victim's office located in the defendant's office located in the 'Mana' on 10:00 on January 9, 2013, who requested the repayment of the debt to the victim who requested the payment of the debt.

It is called "the first purchase" to do so.