The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim alleged misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles interfered with the management of the building of this case, such as unauthorized access to the church building owned and managed by the defendant, and the defendant sent letters to the purport of simple notification or warning in the management of the building.

Since the Defendant had no intent to threaten the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of intimidation, I would like to render a judgment of suspended sentence against the Defendant without criminal power in light of the background, content, robbery, etc. of sending the instant letters.

2. Determination

A. 1) In order to establish a crime of intimidation, a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles refer to notifying a person of harm that may cause fears, and there is a concrete threat of harm that may be deemed to be at least possible. An intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an intent or desire to actually realize the harm that the actor knows that it would cause harm to such an extent. Even if the notice of harm is given, if it is acceptable by social norms in light of the custom and ethical sense of society, etc., the crime of intimidation is not established. However, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading up to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2102, May 10, 1991; 201Do3216, Mar. 25, 2005; 201Do4216, Mar. 21, 2005).