The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant sent the victim the text messages, such as the statement in the facts charged, to confirm the facts and to secure a new disease, and it merely sent the victim with the meaning of proceeding civil and criminal procedures for the victim’s personal injury or threat. Thus, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although it cannot be viewed as intimidation in the crime of intimidation. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In relation to the crime of intimidation, the term "Intimidation" means notifying a person of harm that may cause fears, and the crime of intimidation requires a concrete threat of harm that may be deemed to be at least possible in order to establish the crime of intimidation. Even if there is a malicious notice, if it is likely to be acceptable in light of social customs and ethical sense, etc., the crime of intimidation is not established. However, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation should be determined not only by the appearance of the act, but also by taking into account the circumstances leading up to such an act, the circumstances leading up to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2102, May 10, 191; 2005Do329, Mar. 25, 2005). Based on the above legal principles, the victim sent the message in this case to the investigative agency and the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the court below based on the following circumstances:

In addition, the defendant stated to the effect that he would have been able to find the victim or be able to cause physical harm, etc., and the defendant stated to the effect that he was able to do so.