The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant sent the victim C a Kakao Stockholm message with the same content as the facts charged, but since the victim did not feel fear due to the above message, the Defendant did not threaten the victim, and there was no intent of intimidation to the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of intimidation of relevant legal principles, the content of the harm notified must be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people, in full view of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, friendship between the offender and the other party, relationship between the perpetrator and the other party, etc., and the relationship between the third party and the perpetrator, etc., if the harm was notified by the third party, it should be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people. However, the other party does not necessarily have to feel feel realistically. As long as the other party knew of its meaning by notifying the harm to such degree, the other party’s perception of the harm, regardless of whether the other party realistically made fear, the elements of intimidation are satisfied and the crime of intimidation should be interpreted to have been committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). b. The court below duly admitted and duly examined the evidence, i.e., the defendant sent the message to the victim or the surrounding party.