The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The phrase as stated in the facts charged does not constitute intimidation, because it does not constitute a fact or a threat that is likely to harm the life and body of the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of fact, intimidation means notifying the victim of harm that may cause fear of harm and injury, and the crime of intimidation requires the notification of specific harm and injury to the extent that it may be deemed possible to establish the crime of intimidation. Even if the notification was made in bad faith, the crime of intimidation is not established if it is acceptable in light of social customs and ethical sense, etc. 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 surrounding the act, such as the background leading to such act, relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2412, May 26, 201), and the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the Defendant, by carrying dangerous articles with the victim around January 5, 2015, and the Defendant was indicted for the victim on two-year period of imprisonment with prison labor from around 2015 to 2015.