The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to resolve a dispute between G and the victim, the defendant of mistake of facts only expressed the emotions previously interfered with the process of explaining the progress of the case in the first place with G and the victim, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case without intimidation is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the term “Intimidation” which is required to establish a crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to the person who has become the other party. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury must be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and the degree of friendship. Meanwhile, the term “definite” refers to the infringement of legal interests. Even if the harm or injury does not necessarily infringe the victim’s legal interests, but is a close relation with the victim and a third party, if the content of harm or injury is likely to cause fear to the victim himself/herself, the crime of intimidation may be established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012).