공갈등
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of five million won.
Defendant
A.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found Defendant A not guilty on the ground that there was no proof of the crime regarding the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. of the Defendant B’s information and communications network, and found Defendant A guilty only of the Defendants’ official conflict, intimidation, and defamation, and sentenced Defendant B to a fine of KRW 5 million, and KRW 3 million, respectively. The Defendants’ appeal only became final and conclusive on the part of Defendant B’s acquittal as it is, and only the part of the lower judgment’s conviction
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A’s threat of conflict, mistake of facts about intimidation, or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of all of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that: (a) although the said Defendant was to receive KRW 4 million from F, it is apprehended that F would be aware of his criminal facts; (b) thereby, the crime of extortion is not established; and (c) the said Defendant did not have threatened E on May 28, 2013; and (d) the lower court found Defendant guilty of all of the facts charged.
B. The Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the defamation portion constitutes a true fact and solely for the public interest, and thus, the illegality of the facts charged should be denied. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
C. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 3 million) against the Defendants on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants is too unreasonable.
3. We examine ex officio the Defendants’ grounds for appeal prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.