The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. misunderstanding of facts as to intimidation for the purpose of retaliation and misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant merely expressed comments to the victim in his Kakaoto Ri, as he was fluencing against the victim, and did not intend to do harm to the victim, or did not intend to notify the victim thereof. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Defendant had the intent of retaliation and intimidation in relation to criminal punishment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (ten months of imprisonment and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the term “Intimidation” means a threat of harm to an extent generally likely to cause fear by viewing the person as a matter of view. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knew to the degree of harm and injury that he/she has notified. Whether an act of intimidation or intimidation was intended shall be determined by taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the surrounding circumstances, such as the background leading to such act, relationship with the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329, Mar. 25, 2005). Moreover, whether an act of intimidation was “the purpose of surrender” under Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes ought to be determined reasonably by taking into account the following factors, including the offender’s age, occupation, etc., motive and method of the act, details and mode of the act, and personal relation between the victim and the victim (see, etc.).