The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not constitute a intimidation, there was no intention of intimidation against the defendant, and the victim did not have any fear.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of intimidation and by misapprehending the relevant facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of intimidation must be sufficient to regard a person as a general rule and cause fear, but it does not require the other party to feel realistically. Inasmuch as the other party recognizes its meaning by notifying harm to such an extent that the other party knew, the elements of intimidation are satisfied regardless of whether the other party realistically arouses fear. An intentional act as a subjective constituent element of intimidation does not require the intent or desire to actually realize the harm that the perpetrator knew and accepts that degree of harm that the perpetrator knew. The subjective constituent element of the crime of intimidation is merely a mere expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary labor, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of surrounding circumstances, the act of intimidation or intimidation cannot be acknowledged, but whether the act of intimidation or intimidation was intended shall be determined in light of the circumstances surrounding the victim and the surrounding circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do6568, Apr. 6, 2007). 206).