beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant sent the same message as the facts charged, but the Defendant did not have any intention to threaten, and the victim did not have any actual appearance due to the above message, and thus the Defendant’s act does not constitute intimidation.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous by mistake or misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion by reasoning of its judgment.
B. In the crime of intimidation, the term "Intimidation" means a threat of harm that can generally be deemed to cause fear to a person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of intimidation does not require an intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites to such a degree that it would cause such danger and injury. 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 is no intention to harm in light of surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the actor's act of intimidation or temporary dispersion is an expression of harm.
The issue of whether there was a intimidation or intimidation within the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the background leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 1991). The defendant's act does not constitute an objective case where it is objectively obvious that the defendant's act is merely an emotional speech or behavior or has no intent to harm, in light of the fact that the defendant's relationship, the circumstance and details of sending text messages, and the victim's actual statement that he was incompetence and apprehensions after receiving such text message.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.