The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant merely satisfly made a little satisfly satisfy on the victim's attitude, and does not notify the victim of specific harm with the intent of intimidation, considering the special circumstances at the time, the defendant's satfs in carics are likely to be acceptable by social norms, so the crime of intimidation cannot be established). 2. The judgment of this court

A. Intimidation in a crime of intimidation means a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel a fear, and there must be a concrete threat of harm that may be deemed to be at least possible for a crime of intimidation to be established. However, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of intimidation does not require the intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites the threat of harm to such degree. However, if the actor’s speech and behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that there exists no intention of intimidation in light of surrounding circumstances, etc., the intent of intimidation or intimidation cannot be acknowledged.

In addition, whether there was an intent of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by comprehensively considering the surrounding circumstances, such as the external appearance of the act as well as the background leading to such act and the relationship with the victim.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2187, Sept. 29, 1995; 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006). Also, there is a threat of harm and injury.

In light of the custom and ethical concept of society, a crime of intimidation is not established if it is to the extent acceptable by social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do70, Mar. 10, 1998).

In this case, the first instance court and the first instance court have duly adopted and investigated.