The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Regarding intimidation of misunderstanding of facts, Defendant 1 did not say that the victim referred to as “F department store by phone, ... to die,” and the victim first stated that “packs the Defendant that “packs no longer than F department store,” and “packs the Defendant that “packs no longer than F department store.” Such words of the Defendant cannot be deemed to be a notice of harm and injury, and even if it is deemed to be a notice of harm and injury to domestic affairs, illegality is dismissed as a justifiable act or self-defense. 2) The fine of the lower court (1.50,00 won) of unfair sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

B. As to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, there is a public performance of the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and insult of the legal principles, since the Defendant could be aware of an unspecified or multiple persons at the time of bringing the Defendant’s abusive language to the victim. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (1.50,000 won

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may recognize the fact that the Defendant mentioned the victim to the F department store of the victim’s workplace to the effect that the victim would be disadvantaged in the workplace. This constitutes a threat of harm and injury in the crime of intimidation.

Furthermore, it is understood to the purport that the victim's expression that he does not call a penture will file a civil petition. Accordingly, the defendant's expression cannot be viewed as a legitimate act under the social norms, in response thereto, that the defendant's notice of harm and injury was made by such expression.

The lower court that convicted this part of the facts charged is justifiable.

B. The public performance of the offense of insult of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake can be recognized if it is not necessary to recognize the public performance of the offense, and if it is in a situation where many and unspecified persons can be directly aware of it.