The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the fact-finding) is that the Defendant, in conversations with the victim, made the same remarks as the facts charged, but said, the Defendant did not intend to harm the victim several times, and thus, cannot be deemed as intimidation by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In the crime of intimidation, the term “Intimidation” means, in general, notifying a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fears. 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 citing that the offender knows that it is harmful to such an extent. However, if the actor’s speech or behavior is merely a mere expression of emotional or temporary decentralization and it is objectively evident that there is no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the actor’s act or intent of intimidation is a mere expression of emotional or temporary decentralization.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s risk and injury that the Defendant notified to the victim is not a mere emotional desire to cause fear to a person, and it is difficult to view that the content of the harm and injury that the Defendant notified to the victim is sufficient to cause fear to a person, and it is difficult to view that the content of the harm and injury that the Defendant notified to the victim is merely a mere emotional desire to cause fear to a person, and there is no intention to actually harm the Defendant.

(b).