All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The punishment imposed by the lower court against Defendant A (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant B’s misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principles are only the fact that the joint Defendant A expressed a desire to do so, and there was no threat to the joint Defendant A’s threat or intiating disease using a motor vehicle.

Even if the above facts of the crime are acknowledged, the crime of this case committed by Defendant B was committed several times by the co-defendant A in the process of resisting the defect in driving threats, and thus, it is not unlawful as it constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant B (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) The act of notifying harm in the crime of intimidation on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B’s act of notifying harm in ordinary language or, as a case may be, depending on the circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316, Jan. 27, 201). The content of the harm notified includes any property other than that against body or life. On the other hand, the intent or desire to actually realize the harm that the actor knows with the awareness and citing that it would give notice of harm to the degree of the harm, is not necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the act of threatening Defendant B’s driving of a joint motor vehicle using a motor vehicle, which is a dangerous article, prevents the driving of the common motor vehicle, and threaten Defendant A to commit the crime of intimidation.

In addition, considering the motive and background leading up to the above intimidation, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the degree of intimidation, etc., Defendant B’s act does not contravene social norms.