특수협박
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts), the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the following grounds: (a) the victim’s 112 reported phone call, the victim’s statement, and the statement in the victim’s statement; and (b) the Defendant, as the facts charged in this case, stated that “the victim in a de facto marital relationship will die” on the ground that he did not give money to the victim; and (c) the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that he acted with the kitchen knife with the kitchen knife and threatened him
2. The court below held that ① (a) unlike the victim’s statement made by the investigative agency, the victim made a false statement to the effect that “if the defendant knew of money that he wanted to drink and drink, kniff will die,” and (b) the victim made a false statement to the effect that “the victim reported to the effect that he was knife at the time of the above report, but he was knife and knife at the time of the above report;” and (c) the victim made a repeated statement to the effect that “the victim was knife at the time of the above report,” and that “the victim was knife at the time of the public prosecutor’s questioning about the background of the false report,” and that “the victim was flife at the time of the above report without clearly explaining the prosecutor’s questioning.”
In a case where it is difficult to conclude that the victim made a false report at the court of original instance, and in particular, it is difficult to say that the victim was punished by the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, etc., and there is room to view that the victim did not make a statement clearly recognizing that the victim was a false statement. ② At the time of the above report, the police officer testified in the court of original instance that “at the time of the dispatch of the police officer, the victim made a statement that “at the time of the dispatch, the victim took the kitchen ket of the kitchen in the front of the kitchen,” and the police officer testified in the court of original instance that “at the time of the dispatch, the