특수협박
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.
The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not have any fact that Defendant A has threatened the victim in a knife, and Defendant B made a statement to the extent of “whether the victim would have been infinite, not infinite, but infinite.” However, such a degree of intimidation cannot be deemed as intimidation. Defendant B could not be deemed as having a relation of intimidation jointly with Defendant A, since Defendant A could not be known of the crime committed by Defendant
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby rendering the Defendants guilty judgment.
B. The lower court’s punishment on the Defendants of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendants asserted that mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were identical to the grounds for appeal in the lower court.
In regard to this, the court below may fully recognize that Defendant B, at the place where the Defendants are together, engaged in the same behavior as described in the facts charged, which requires the Defendants to pay the repair cost in full as required. Defendant A, after having a victim who had already been chilled psychologically, left the knife in the vehicle and left the knife in front of the victim’s front and rear the knife in front of the knife, and the knife is said to be “frightd................, in light of the circumstances such as the Defendants and the victim’s relationship, and the situation at the time, he may sufficiently recognize that the Defendants engaged in the same behavior as described in the facts charged with the purpose of paying the repair cost in full. Such behavior of the Defendants constitutes a threat of harm that may cause fear to the public by considering the fact that the Defendants’ act constitutes a sale of defective vehicle, and it is nothing more than an expression of emotional desire or temporary labor.