In this regard, the part of the lower judgment’s dismissal was separately determined as it is, since only the prosecutor appealeds the part of the lower judgment regarding the acquittal, and the prosecutor and the Defendant did not appeal the part concerning the dismissal of the prosecution.

Therefore, the dismissal part of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, and only the acquittal part is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the victim not guilty of the above facts charged on the grounds as stated in its holding, although the defendant sufficiently recognized the fact that the victim had a harm and injury as stated in this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the relevant legal principles and the evidence in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act as stated in the facts charged was merely a mere expression of emotional humiliation or decentralization rather than a threat of harm and injury, and that the Defendant had the intent of intimidation.

On the ground that it is difficult to see the above charges, the court acquitted the above charges.

원심이 그와 같은 무죄 판단의 근거로 삼은 원심 판시 법리와 원심 판시 사정들에 다가 다음과 같은 법리 및 추가 사정들 즉, ① 협박죄는 고의 범이기 때문에 주관적 요건으로서 고의가 필요하고, 고의의 내용으로서는 고지 내용의 인식 이외에 상대방의 요지( 了知 )에 대한 인식ㆍ예견도 필요한 점, ② 그런데 피고인이 위 공소사실 기재와 같은 행위를 할 당시에 피고 인의 주변에는...