All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation) by Defendant A’s mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A’s act of assault, etc. (joint intimidation) was committed against the victim M without any electricity, but this cannot be said to have caused fear of fear by the above victim. As such, the crime of intimidation cannot be deemed to have been committed.

B) As to interference with the business, Defendant A did not give his employees an instruction to obstruct the business of the victimized company by taking a bath or taking a customer vehicle, etc., and thus, Defendant A cannot be viewed as a joint principal offender of interference with the business.

2) As to Defendant B (Special Intimidation), Defendant B did not have threatened Defendant B with the victim N using a motor vehicle on June 2017.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable for the illegal Defendants in sentencing.

2. Determination

A. H judgment 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles refers to a threat of harm that may generally be deemed to cause fear to a person. To constitute a crime of intimidation, the content of harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to a person generally when comprehensively considering various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, and the degree of friendship and status between the perpetrator and the other party, etc., such as mutual relationship between the perpetrator and the other party. However, it is not required that the other party realistically feel fear, and its meaning is recognized by notifying harm and injury to such an extent that the other party knows the other party’s meaning, regardless of whether the other party realistically made a fear, and thus, it shall be interpreted that the elements of the crime of intimidation are satisfied and the crime of intimidation are reached (see Supreme Court Decision 2007 September 28, 2007).