The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles reveal that the defendant found the victim so as to be "anywhere the professor room", but there is no other fact that there was intimidation as stated in the facts charged.

In addition, expressions written in the facts charged do not constitute a threat of harm and injury in a crime of intimidation, and even if so, constitutes a threat of harm and injury.

Even to the extent that it can be accepted by social norms.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts and intimidation.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding a crime of intimidation refers to the notification of harm that may cause fear to an individual, and the notification of harm and injury that may be deemed at least possible to constitute a crime of intimidation must be made in order to establish a crime of intimidation. Even if the notification of harm and injury is made, if it is to the extent acceptable by social norms in light of social customs and morality, etc., the crime of intimidation is not established. However, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such an act, such as the circumstance leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc., and before and after the act of exercise of rights such as demanding debt collection. Furthermore, a creditor may perform an act necessary for the exercise of rights such as demanding a debt collection, but the right should be exercised in a considerable way within the extent necessary to urge a debtor to voluntarily implement the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do24122, May 26, 2011).