[협박][공2007.1.15.(266),165]
Requirements to constitute a crime of intimidation where a notice of harm is given to a third party in a manner that would cause harm and injury.
In the case of intimidation, not only notifying the perpetrator that he would have a direct harm, but also notifying a third party that he would have a harm. However, in such a case, only if the notifying person made an explicit or implied speech or behavior that the third party believe that the third party's act is in a position that may actually control or influence the third party's act or that the third party's act may depend on the third party's intention, it can be evaluated as an act that the notifying person notifies that he would have a direct harm. If the notifying person does not make such explicit or implied speech or behavior or the other party's perception as above, even though the other party actually imprisoned, such an act of notifying person cannot be deemed to constitute a crime of intimidation.
Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Prosecutor
Daegu District Court Decision 2006No1795 Decided August 29, 2006
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. In the case of intimidation, not only notifying the perpetrator that the perpetrator would have a direct harm, but also notifying a third party of the harm in a way that would cause the harm to the third party. However, in such a case, only where the informed person has made an explicit or implied speech or behavior that the third party believe that the third party's act was in a position that could have an influence on the third party or that the third party is in a position that could have an influence on the third party, or where the third party is aware that the third party's act would have a direct harm, it can be evaluated as the same act that the notifying person notifies that the third party would have a harm. If the informed person does not make such explicit or implied speech or behavior or that the other party did not have any awareness as above, it cannot be deemed that the other party's act of intimidation constitutes a crime of intimidation even if the other party actually stimulated.
The judgment of the court below which is the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of intimidation against the rules of evidence.
2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)