The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

It is true that the Defendant sent the victim a message with the same content as the facts charged (hereinafter “instant message”), however, in light of its content, it cannot be deemed that the instant message constitutes a threat of harm and injury as stated in the crime of intimidation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on different premise, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

In the case of a crime of intimidation related to the legal principles regarding the defendant's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the expression of harm to an extent that would normally cause fear to a person. 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 cites that the perpetrator informss such a degree of harm. However, if the perpetrator's speech or behavior is merely a mere emotional expression or temporary dispersion, 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 intent of intimidation or intimidation is not recognized, but whether there was an intent of intimidation or temporary dispersion 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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 191). Meanwhile, even if a creditor may perform an act necessary for the exercise of his/her rights, such as demanding for debt collection, the creditor shall be in accordance with legal and justifiable procedures, and the right shall be exercised in a reasonable manner to the extent necessary to urge the debtor to voluntarily perform his/her obligations.

Supreme Court Decision 201. May 5, 201