The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. As to intimidation, the Defendant did not say that the victim would be threatened, such as as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant’s expression “1.6 billion won is claimed to the victim” is not a claim by the victim, but rather a claim by C et al. (hereinafter “C”).

It can not be said that it is merely a mere notification or warning of fact, and it cannot be said that it is a threat to the victim.

B. As to the obstruction of business, the general meeting of shareholders of this case was illegal as permitting the exercise of shareholder's rights by the second-name shareholder, and it is not a legitimate general meeting of shareholders that is held by the defendant due to unauthorized intrusion on the place of business possessed by the defendant, and thus it cannot be established as obstruction of business.

2. Determination

A. As to the crime of intimidation, the term “intimidating” means, in general, informing a person of harm to the extent of causing fears, and there is no limitation on the type of legal interest or the subject of enjoyment of legal interest to infringe the content of the harm so notified, that is, the content of the harm so notified.

Therefore, even if a threat of harm that infringes on the legal interests of the victim himself/herself or his/her relatives, or any other third party, is a close relation with the victim himself/herself and the third party is likely to cause fears to the victim, a crime of intimidation may be established if such harm and injury are likely to cause fears to the victim.

At this time, the term “third party” includes not only natural persons but also legal entities. Whether a threat of harm to the victim’s legal interest is likely to cause fear to the victim himself/herself or not shall be determined by the specific contents of the harm and injury so notified, the method of expression, and the victim.