The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not show the attitude that the Defendant seems to have been detrimental to the victim’s residence in front of the victim’s residence.

In addition, although the defendant sent the victim a letter as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, it cannot be said that such an act has reached the degree of intimidation, and thus, the court below convicted the defendant, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Intimidation as a means of threat to a judgment refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be frighten to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. Here, the realization of the harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it itself is unlawful. The realization of the harm and injury does not necessarily require that an actor demands the delivery of property or property benefits on the basis of his status, etc., and the other party’s refusal to comply with the demand is a threat of harm and injury even in a case where the threat of harm and injury are used as a means of the realization of right, and even if it is used as a means of the realization of right, if the threat and the means of exercising the right exceed the permissible level or scope under social norms, a crime of coercion is established.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below held that the defendant had a legal relationship with E around 1993, and the defendant had a legal relationship since around 2000, and the defendant had been maintained until around the time when the document of this case was prepared. (2) The defendant demanded that 200 million won be changed to the victim by setting the date when the document of this case was prepared.