[협박][공2002.4.1.(151),731]
Whether a person with parental authority constitutes a crime of intimidation in a case where the person with parental authority takes an attitude that seems to be prone to a person with a view to be a person with a view to be a person with a view to be a person (affirmative
A person with parental authority has a right to protect and educate persons (Article 913 of the Civil Act) and may take disciplinary action necessary to protect and educate such persons (Article 915 of the Civil Act). However, it is necessary to exercise his/her right to education within the extent necessary for the sound fostering of personality (Article 915 of the Civil Act). However, as he/she fails to make his/her own appraisal and makes it difficult to regard a intimidation as an exercise of the right to education as an exercise of the right to education by itself, it is difficult to say that a intimidation is likely to interfere with the growth of the personality of the victim.
Article 283 of the Criminal Act, Articles 913 and 915 of the Civil Act
Defendant
Defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 2001No459 delivered on November 13, 2001
The appeal is dismissed.
Examining the adopted evidence of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the facts constituting an offense against the defendant can be fully recognized, and the judgment below did not properly conduct the hearing as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal and did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence
In addition, a person with parental authority has the right to protect and educate the person (Article 913 of the Civil Act) and may take disciplinary action necessary to protect and educate the person (Article 915 of the Civil Act). However, according to the facts established by the court below, it should be exercised in a reasonable manner to the extent necessary to foster the person's personality (Article 915 of the Civil Act). However, as the court below did not make an appraisal on his own, and if he turns out to be a camping net, it is difficult to view it as an exercise of cultural rights as an exercise of cultural rights.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)