Although sending text messages to the victim, which are the same as the facts charged, can be deemed as intimidation as a malicious notice to the victim, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim of the facts charged of this case, is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination.

A. Summary of the facts charged

On December 17, 2012, the Defendant sold a used vehicle dealer to the Victim A (the 62 years of age) * K used vehicle. However, the victim filed a complaint against the Defendant on June 11, 2013 in relation to the sale and purchase of the said vehicle by fraud, intimidation, and was notified of his/her attendance at the Defendant’s capacity as the Defendant in the said accusation case on July 17, 2013.

1) On July 17, 2013: Around 23:33, the Defendant sent a text message to the victim’s cell phone (not omitted) with the Defendant’s cell phone (hereinafter “the Defendant’s cell phone”). In the absence of the withdrawal of the complaint by this week, the Defendant entered the victim’s cell phone in the same week. The Defendant was given a reply to the effect that the Defendant is not a legal expert. The Defendant received an answer from the legal expert that the Defendant constitutes an accusation. The Defendant sent a text message to the effect that the Defendant is imprisonment with prison labor for the first time, due to bad nature of the crime, and threatened the victim.

2 ) 피고인은 2013 . 7 . 21 . 15 : 04경에 같은 방법으로 피해자의 휴대전화에 ' 고소 취 하하고 , 돈 포기하고 K 저당 해지서류 드릴 테니 저당 해지하고 , 모든 걸 끝내세요 . 아 니면 무고죄로 끝까지 가고 K는 대포차 됩니다 . 보험료 차액은 ABS와 무관하다는 증 빙자료가 있기에 무고죄가 성립됩니다 . 저는 이제 라오스로 떠납니다 . 제 입장에서는 사장님이 괘씸하지만 그동안 정을 생각해서 마지막으로 기회를 드리는 겁니다 . ' 라는 내 용의 문자메시지를 발송하여 피해자를 협박하였다 .

B. The judgment of the court below

1) The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

A) On December 17, 2012, the Defendant arranged to A for the purchase of * K and high-speed cars. The Defendant is aware of whether K cars are seized by his/her creditor, and the Defendant on December 24, 2012.

The K car set up a false collateral security in which the secured debt amount is KRW 2 million on the K car.

B) On June 11, 2013, at the Busan Police Station established around the day of the purchase of the K car, A purchased the vehicle by entering the automobile insurance with the Defendant who arranged for the purchase of the vehicle by entering the vehicle insurance with the Defendant who was not attached to ABS as the contractor, and then paid the premium, and then acquired 41,250 won in difference of the premium by changing ABS to the attachment of the vehicle. ② In order to prevent the creditor from seizing the K car, A set up a mortgage of KRW 2,00,000 on the K car, and if the Defendant terminated the mortgage, A would dispose of the vehicle by auction.” On February 2, 2013, A purchased the vehicle with the Defendant's scoo which had been sold to the Defendant's scoo, and the Defendant did not immediately file a complaint under the name of 300,000 won due to the threat of the Defendant's scoon immediately.

C) On July 26, 2013, the Defendant was present at the Busan Police Station established on July 26, 2013, and “person in charge of K Passenger Vehicle Automobile Insurance”

L returned KRW 41,250 to Ro-man M, however, it was erroneous in the name of the vehicle regardless of ABS discount. A terminated the automobile insurance in the middle, and submitted a L/L statement to the effect that “The remainder was refunded to A after deducting four-month premium.” The Defendant left the Republic of Korea on July 31, 2013, and entered the Republic of Korea on August 28, 2013.

D) The Daejeon District Prosecutors’ Office this part** The Prosecutor rendered a decision on September 23, 2013 that there was no suspicion of fraud or intimidation by the Defendant (incompetence of evidence). A appealed against the above decision, but received a decision of rejection from the Daejeon High Prosecutors’ Office on October 21, 2013. A filed an application for adjudication.

E) On December 4, 2013, the Defendant filed an accusation against A on suspicion, and A received a decision on March 26, 2014 that there was no suspicion (defluence of evidence) from the Defendant.

2) According to the above facts, Gap filed a complaint against the defendant as a crime of fraud, intimidation, but it was difficult to recognize the defendant's suspicion, and the defendant was also aware of L's written statement, and the defendant filed a complaint against A with no accusation after having received the decision that there was no suspicion against Gap's complaint, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant's termination of false collective security right established on A's car cannot be deemed as harm to A. In full view of this, it can be deemed that the legitimate exercise of the right to exercise the right to withdraw the complaint against the defendant, who filed a complaint against the defendant, was a crime of false accusation against A, and even if the defendant made a statement that is not related to the right to exercise the right to exercise the right, it can be deemed as a threat to the extent that it would be acceptable under social norms. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant threatened the defendant with a threat that may cause harm to A's fear. Accordingly, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no evidence of a crime.

C. Judgment of the court below

In a thorough examination of the records of this case, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and unlike the judgment below, there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. 3. Conclusion

Since the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Doh-young

Judges Senior Jin-jin