The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of intimidation is not established, since there is no specific notice of harm and injury to the victim’s mobile phone text messages sent by the Defendant in misunderstanding the legal doctrine, since it does not include a notice of harm and injury.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Intimidation” required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation as stipulated in Article 283 of the Criminal Act to determine the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is generally a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender’s tendency, the surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, the relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and the degree of friendship.

On the other hand, the term “definite” refers to infringing legal interests. Even if the harm is necessarily an infringement of the legal interests of a victim, not the victim himself/herself, but his/her relatives or other third parties, if the harm is closely related to the victim himself/herself and the content of the harm is likely to cause fear to the victim himself/herself, a crime of intimidation may be established.

(대법원 2012. 8. 17. 선고 2011도10451 판결 등 참조). 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인은 피해자에게 “니들이 저지른 이 만행이 결국 누구한테 어떻게 돌아가는지 잘 봐! 니 새끼 니 조카들, 잘 지켜내라, 니네 손주는 최근에 E 어린이집으로 옮겼고 3시 30분에 하원하고 당신 딸이 최근에 차도 비엠으로 바꾸고”라는 내용의 휴대전화 문자메시지를 보냈음을 알 수 있고, 이는 그 자체로 피고인이 피해자에 대한 분노를 드러내면서 자신이 피해자의 손자와 조카들의 생명신체 등에 어떠한 위해를 가할 수도 있음을...