The judgment of the court below regarding the facts charged of intimidation around September 28, 2016 and intimidation around November 6, 2016 is reversed.

Defendant .

1. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and finding that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. To establish a crime of intimidation of related legal principles, the content of the harm notified must be sufficient to cause fear to a person generally in light of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the relation between the perpetrator and the other party, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, the relationship between the perpetrator and the other party, the degree of friendship and status, etc. between the perpetrator and the other party, and the relationship between the third party and the third party, etc. included in or proposed to the notification. However, the other party is not required to feel realistically, and as long as the other party perceived its meaning by notifying the harm to such an extent that the other party knew, the elements of the crime of intimidation shall be satisfied and it shall be interpreted that the crime of intimidation is completed, regardless of whether the other party realistically made a fear.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007). There is a threat of harm and injury.

However, in light of the custom and ethical concept of society, the crime of intimidation shall not be established if it is to the extent that it can be accepted by social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do70 delivered on March 10, 1998). B.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court concerning the facts charged of intimidation around November 6, 2016 and around September 28, 2016: (a) the message sent by the Defendant to the victim, as described in the facts charged, at around November 6, 2016 and around September 28, 2016, constitutes intimidation because it is sufficiently sufficient to cause a person to feel fearful; and (b) the message sent by the Defendant to the victim, as described in the facts charged, constitutes intimidation around November 6, 2016.

(1) The wife of a defendant shall be the victim on August 21, 2016.