The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the written appraisal by the chief of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office in the summary of the grounds for appeal, according to the written appraisal by the chief of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the defendant's intimidation may be acknowledged in full view of the following: (a) the letter of intimidation is highly likely to be written by the defendant; (b) the letter of intimidation was sent by the initial finger, but the letter of intimidation was sent to the defendant after the police investigation by the defendant was commenced; (c) the letter was sent to the defendant, the letter was not known to the defendant, and the statement by D with credibility.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant, who was the husband of the victim C (here, 35 years of age), was living together with D from around August 14, 2015 to around August 14, 2015, and continued to have an internal relationship; and (b) D, upon having been created by other in-house women, had a different in-house relationship and had a different in-house, had the victim feel mind to send a letter of intimidation to the victim.

Accordingly, around September 30, 2015, the Defendant sent to the victim a letter containing the content of the victim, such as sending a letter stating that the victim would be threatened ten times from around September 30, 2015, stating that “The victim would be a Fvalescent Hospital in which the injured person works as a nurse through mail from Daegu North-gu E, and that the victim would have a thickness.” From around that time to June 14, 2016, the Defendant sent to the victim a letter stating that the victim would be threatened with the victim’s injury (hereinafter “the letter of this case”).

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant prepared the instant letter in light of the following: (a) the Defendant started to send the instant letter to the victim after D and the Defendant were sent; (b) the content of the instant letter; (c) particularly D’s Buddhist and living together, and the content of gender-related entries, etc., are highly likely to be seen as either known only to the Defendant or only to the Defendant; and (d) the instant letter was written in the initial hand, but the Defendant started to prepare the instant letter after undergoing a police investigation, and the Defendant started to prepare the instant letter.