The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The defendant and the victim B (the age of 51) of the facts charged have been accused on the ground that they were members of the same CAssociation, and the victim did not have much number of people in the ordinary meeting.

On June 28, 2012, at around 22:30 on June 28, 2012, the Defendant threatened the victim by sending a phone to the victim at a mutually influence point in the Daegu Eastdong-gu, Daegu, saying, “The Defendant has been able to grasp his body and body in the future of the party, so that he will die by cutting down his ship or structure.”

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and imposed a fine of KRW 500,000 on the Defendant.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misapprehension of legal principles do not constitute intimidation merely because the Defendant did not notify the B of harm, but merely expressed an emotional decentralization.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the KRW 500,000 of a fine) is excessively unreasonable.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. In the crime of intimidation, the term "Intimidation" means, as a general rule, notifying a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fears. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm notified by the actor with the awareness that the actor informss of such harm to the degree. However, in a case where the actor's speech or behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the actor's intent of intimidation or temporary dispersion is not acknowledged.

The issue of whether there was the intent of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act and the relationship with the victim as a whole.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546 Decided August 25, 2006). B

The court below is legitimate.