The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The delivery of text messages to a victim by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not threaten the victim as a substantial act to settle the amount that the victim acquired by deception or embezzled from the Defendant, but does not harm the victim’s reputation by pointing out false facts. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of defamation by statement of intimidation and false facts is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court of unfair sentencing on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination on the crime of intimidation 1) In general, a crime of intimidation means a threat of harm that may cause fear to an ordinary person. The content of the harm so notified, i.e., the content of the harm that is likely to be infringed, or the type of legal interests or the subject of enjoyment of legal interests, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do1017, Jul. 15, 2010). In order to establish a crime of intimidation, the content of the harm notified must be sufficient to cause fear to an ordinary person, in full view of various circumstances before and after the act, but it does not require that the other party realistically feel fear, and as long as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying the harm that is likely to cause fear to the other party, it shall be interpreted that the elements of the crime of intimidation are satisfied, regardless of whether the other party realistically raised fear (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do6066, Sept. 28, 2007).