공갈등
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In full view of the content of the text message sent by the Defendant to the victim C, the victim and the victim’s statements in the court below’s witnessO, etc., the court below found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the Defendant notified the victim C of harm beyond the permissible level under the social norms, and could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s assaulting KRW 50 million. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (the amount of two million won in punishment, the order to complete a sexual assault treatment program for eight hours) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. 1) The expression of harm and injury as a means of threat to a misunderstanding of fact refers to the threat of harm and injury to a person to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or obstructs the freedom of decision-making. The realization of the harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it itself is unlawful. The method of notifying harm and injury may be indirectly made through a third party other than the person to whom the harm and injury may not be explicitly and explicitly, even if not explicitly or directly. However, if it is used as a means of exercising the right by a legitimate right holder, the establishment of the crime of attack cannot be acknowledged unless it is determined comprehensively by taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act when it is used as a means of exercising the right (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do114, Aug. 14, 1990). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant sent the victim the text of this part of the facts charged or sought money from the victim's house.
However, in light of the above legal principles, the defendant sought payment for the victim C with respect to the new construction of the studio building.