The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty of special intimidation on the ground that the defendant was driving Oral ba in line with the road progress, and there was no fact that he threatened the victim by using Oral ba, and therefore there was an error of mistake of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) against the Defendant is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In the crime of intimidation in determining a mistake of fact, it refers to notifying a person of harm that may cause fear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2412, May 26, 2011). The act of notifying harm in the crime of intimidation is ordinarily based on the language, or, as a case may be, notification of harm and injury, depending on the circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14316 Decided January 27, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146 Decided September 10, 2009). According to the instant black video, criminal facts of intimidation in the judgment of the court below are acknowledged. The Defendant was able to pay back the victim’s fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluoring the victim’s fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluor. The Defendant was fluording the victim

If so, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant made a threat of harm and injury to the extent sufficient to cause fear to a person by using a stoba, which is a dangerous thing.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. If there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the lower court’s sentencing is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). The lower court determined a sentence by taking into account the favorable circumstances and unfavorable circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

comparison with the original judgment.