협박
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal recognizes the fact that the defendant made the victim the same remarks as the entries in the facts charged of this case.
However, since the injured party was present as a witness in a criminal trial on the assault case between the accused and E and expected to give testimony unfavorable to the accused, the accused merely expressed a simple complaint to the injured party and notified the injured party of the harm sufficient to cause fear.
It is difficult to see it.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of intimidation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: “The Defendant is waiting for the victim D to attend as a witness of the trial of assault case between E and the Defendant at the Cheongju District Court No. 3 single floor No. 4 of the Cheongju District Court No. 62, Cheongju District Court No. 3 single floor No. 4 of the Cheongju District Court No. 15, Jan. 15, 2015, and the victim cannot go beyond his/her match at the time of his/her appearance, if expressed verbally.
“If a witness attends, he/she shall not go beyond his/her match.”
“In the end, the victim threatened the victim”
B. “Intimidation”, which is required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation as prescribed in Article 283 of the Criminal Act, generally refers to a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who becomes the other party. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances before and after the act, including the offender and the other party’s tendency, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and degree of friendship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007; 201Do10451, Aug. 17, 2012).
Judgment
In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below.