The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

misunderstanding of facts: ① The defendant alleged that he had been under the influence of alcohol and had no intention to threaten the victim.

(2) Even if the defendant had the intention of intimidation, such intimidation constitutes an attempted intimidation since the victim did not have frighten.

Nevertheless, the lower court found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

Unfair sentencing: The sentence of the court below (the fine of 500,000 won) against the defendant is too unreasonable.

In the crime of intimidation against a mistake of facts, the term "in the crime of intimidation" means that a person gives notice of harm that may cause fear to a general public. Thus, the subjective constituent elements of such subjective constituent elements do not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm notified by the perpetrator with the awareness that the perpetrator has notified such a degree of harm and injury. However, if the perpetrator's speech and behavior is merely a mere 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 perpetrator has an intention of intimidation or temporary dispersion, but whether there was a intent of intimidation or temporary threat shall be determined not only by the external appearance of the act, but also by comprehensively taking into account the surrounding circumstances, such as the background leading to such act and relation with the victim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 Decided May 10, 1991). According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he/she threatened the victim, such as the record in the instant facts charged, in March 2015, by taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

In the court of the court below, the victim E had the same words as the facts charged in this case from the defendant.