The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal ① The Kakao Stockholm message as stated in paragraph (1) of the crime that the Defendant sent to D is not the victim’s speech, but the victim’s speech is about D, and the performance cannot be recognized. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

② As indicated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts indicated in the Defendant’s judgment, sending the victim’s message and text message is due to the fact that there was money to receive from the victim. In light of the content, it is difficult to view the Defendant as a intimidation under social norms. It cannot be deemed that the Defendant had an intention to intimidation, and the victim did not feel fear through each of the above messages.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is reasonable to view that the Kakaox message listed in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts indicated in the judgment that the Defendant sent to D is a sexual intercourse with the victim. ① On February 10, 2011, the Defendant sent Kakakao Stockholm message to D on June 10, 2013. ② The most part of the Kakakao Stockholm messages sent to and received by the Defendant and D was the content of the victim, and it was reasonable to view that the Kakao Stockholm message listed in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment was also a sexual intercourse with the victim. ③ The Defendant asserted that the victim was a sexual intercourse with the victim as he was a sexual intercourse with the victim, and that he was also a sexual intercourse with the victim, and that he was also the victim’s sexual intercourse with the victim.