The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant merely committed a voice of a mixed person because D opened a door, and thereby, D did not feel fear. Therefore, D did not threaten D.

2. In the crime of intimidation, the term “Intimidation” means a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to an ordinary person, and an intentional act as a subjective constituent element refers to the perception that an actor knows that such a threat has been made to such an extent that it would cause fear. To constitute a crime of intimidation, the content of the harm notified must be sufficient to cause fear to ordinary people, but the other party is not required to feel realistically, and as long as the other party recognizes the meaning of the other party by notifying such a degree of harm, the other party satisfies the requirement of intimidation regardless of whether the other party realistically promulgated or not.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, the representative of the apartment house, was unable to hold a meeting within the office room of the apartment living support center, which is not good between the members of the apartment house residents' council, and the defendant was able to recognize the fact that D had recorded it, and it is sufficient for the defendant to have a person who is a voiced in D to cause fear in general, and the defendant had intention to inform such harm and injury, so the defendant threatened D with D.

Therefore, it does not affect the establishment of a crime of intimidation in order to determine whether D actually feel fear or not.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is justified.