The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the intimidation of a misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was not guilty of intimidation, and there was no criminal intent of intimidation in light of the relationship between the defendant and the victim.

With regard to the injury in the judgment, the victim was sealed the defendant who was on the upper part of the stairs while going on the stairs, and the defendant had a little physical contact in the process of preventing the victim, but did not cause the injury.

Nevertheless, the original judgment which convicted each of the above crimes is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the penalty amounting to five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of intimidation, the expression of harm that is generally likely to cause fear to an ordinary person. 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 knows that it is harmful to such an extent. However, in a case where the actor’s speech or behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that there is no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the actor’s intent of intimidation or temporary dispersion is not recognized. However, the issue of whether there was an act of intimidation or intention of intimidation as above should be determined by considering not only the appearance of the act, but also the surrounding circumstances, such as the background leading to such act, the relation with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329, Mar. 25, 2005).