The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on the statement of the victim, the defendant who misleads the defendant as to the facts is referred to only as "Woona, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma, Ma," unlike the facts charged prior to the alteration, and there is an error of mistake of facts in the judgment below which

However, since the facts charged were modified as stated in the above statement in the trial, it is no longer determined as to the above argument.

misunderstanding of the legal principles and principles) The victim said that “ponhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Even if the intention of threat or threat is recognized, the defendant's act does not violate social rules.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by authority, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment as stated in the following facts charged, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed by permitting it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and we will examine below.

3. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation as stipulated in Article 283 of the Criminal Act, as to the Defendant’s assertion, generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party to the threat of harm and injury. Whether such threat of harm and injury constitutes a threat of harm and injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, such as the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of the notification, relationship between the offender and the other party, status, and degree of friendship (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007).