beta
(영문) 대법원 2012.08.17 2011도10451

협박

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation as prescribed in Article 283 of the Criminal Act, generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party to the crime. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or 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 notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007, supra, refers to the infringement of legal interests. Meanwhile, even if the harm and danger is not the victim himself/herself, but the content of the harm and danger may cause fears to the victim in a close relationship with the victim himself/herself, if it is likely that the content of the harm and danger may cause fears to the victim.

(2) On July 15, 2010, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and acknowledged the crime of intimidation on the ground that the Defendant’s act of walking on the phone to the police station and speaking for the police officer to excessively spread to the Party E (the name was changed to N party; hereinafter “E”) in Gyeonggi-do (the name was changed to N party; hereinafter “E”) located at the time of Suwon-do (hereinafter “E party”) was likely to have reached the extent that the police officer’s position to perform his/her duty to maintain public peace and order could have come to the extent that it was possible to believe that the act would go beyond an obvious doubt from the standpoint of the police officer performing his/her duty to maintain order, in light

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the record, the defendant, while drinking alone, made a compulsory treatment of the budget bill in the Eth Assembly while drinking, made a call to the branch office of the Suwon Police Station using a public telephone on several occasions.