The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant purchased a mobile phone at a mobile phone store operated by the victim B (36).

around 12:20 on September 12, 2020, the Defendant calls with the victim as a contractual issue that was entered into with purchasing mobile phones in the building of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the Defendant’s residence, or in subparagraph D of the mobile phone, and cut off the phone, and then makes it possible to prepare one quality after governance and to connect it.

^^" 라는 문자 메시지를 전송하여 피해자를 협박하였다.

2. “Intimidation” required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to the other party.

In this case, the term “defensive” refers to the act of infringing legal interests.

Whether a notice of bad faith has been given should be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of the notice, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, etc.

Comprehensively taking account of the circumstances revealed in the arguments and records, the defendant and the other party B are the relationship between the person who purchased and sold the mobile phone.

The Defendant and the other party had a fluorous or fluoral dispute in connection with a mobile phone purchased by the Defendant.

I seem to appear.

After the completion of the call, the Defendant sent the same word as the facts charged, but the other party to the call “faging to report.”

“The answer was sent.”

In light of the preceding and following circumstances, the facts charged can be seen as a text message sent and received by the Defendant and the other party in the extension of the said telephone dispute.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant sent a written message with intent to make intimidation by notifying the other party of harm and injury.

It is difficult to evaluate.

3. The facts charged with the conclusion do not have proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.