폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습협박)등
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) The defendant's threat of harm and injury stated in the facts of the crime as stated in the judgment of the court below constitutes a crime of intimidation to the extent that it can be accepted by social norms, and thus cannot be established.
Furthermore, the above acts of the defendant are acts of a political party (Article 20 of the Criminal Act), emergency evacuation (Article 22 of the Criminal Act), and self-help (Article 23 of the Criminal Act), which correspond to acts of a political party (Article 20).
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor’s petition of appeal states “the entire scope of appeal” as “the entire scope,” but the specific grounds for appeal are not specified. In the appellate brief submitted by the prosecutor, there is no specific grounds for appeal as to the part of innocence regarding interference with each business among the judgment of the court below and the part not guilty for habituality.
Therefore, the above part is not judged differently.
(1) The lower court acquitted the victim of the crime of intimidation on May 11, 201 (in fact, misunderstanding the legal doctrine). The lower court determined that the part of the facts charged was not a notification of harm sufficient to cause fear to the victim, on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of causing fear to the victim, and that it is only part of the content that the Defendant complained of the victim again by using the force of the victim’s threat to the end of the life. However, the lower court determined that the above part of the facts charged was not a notification of harm sufficient to the extent that the Defendant made fear to the victim. However, the issue of whether the Defendant used the end of the end of the life cannot be a decisive standard to ascertain whether the notice of harm was made, and ② the Defendant has continuously notified the victim of harm to the victim from February 20, 201, and did not find any special motive or content of other