The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s expression “to die” is a threat of harm and injury, and it cannot be objectively and objectively deemed that there is no intent to harm the victim.

2. Determination

A. In a crime of intimidation in the relevant legal doctrine, the term "Intimidation" means a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel fear, and thus, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require an actor's awareness or desire to actually realize the harm that the perpetrator knows that he/she is aware of, or citing, such a degree of harm and injury. However, if the perpetrator's speech and behavior is merely a mere emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that he/she has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged as a intimidation or temporary expression, but whether there was a threat or intent of intimidation in the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act and relation with the victim.

(Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 delivered on May 10, 1991). B

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the specific judgment, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was able to say that the police officer called upon the victim's report that he was not divingd due to the victim's failure to take place, and the police officer stated in the facts charged. At the same time, two police officers dispatched after receiving a report in the surrounding area at that time did not engage in any aggressive action against the victim. The police officer dispatched at the time of the instant case was frightened by the victim, and the statement of the defendant was made by the victim.