The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant had the right to seek compensation for business rights to the F Hotel located in Incheon, and sent a certificate of the same content as that stated in the facts charged to exercise that right. Thus, this does not constitute an attempted crime of conflict, and the content thereof is also a threat of harm and injury.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Intimidation as a means of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles refers to a threat of harm and danger that may be frighted to restrict a person’s freedom of decision-making or interfere with a person’s freedom to enforce a will. It is sufficient to say that malicious notice does not necessarily require the method of specification, and would have the other party recognize that it would cause harm and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do709, May 13, 2003). Even if the notice of harm and injury is used as a legitimate means of realization of right, if the means and method of realizing the right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social common sense, it shall be deemed that the crime of public conflict was commenced if the victim’s demand for compensation exceeds the permissible level and scope under the social common sense. Whether certain act exceeds the permissible level and scope under the social common sense should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, namely, the purpose and method pursued, and the victim’s right to receive compensation in light of the aforementioned legal principles.