The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the Defendant sent words in the facts charged in the mind that he wanted to receive the return of the purchase fund of the house that the Defendant raised in the divorce process, and did not have any intention to realize harm and injury, and the victim did not feel fear

In addition, the punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to a person. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites to such a degree of harm that is likely to cause fear (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329, Mar. 25, 2005). For a crime of intimidation to be established, the content of harm notified should be sufficient to cause fear to a person generally in light of various circumstances before and after the act such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, the degree of friendship between the offender and the other party, and mutual relation between the other party and the other party. However, as long as the other party has been aware of the meaning of harm and injury by notifying it, it does not require that the other party to feel realistically, regardless of whether the other party has realistically promulgated it, it shall be interpreted as constituting a crime of intimidation by lawfully adopting evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do67.