Main Issues

Whether the crime of intimidation under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act constitutes a crime of nighttime intimidation, if the notice of harm was made at night but the notice of harm was delivered to the victim and reached the expiration date is a day (negative)

Summary of Judgment

Article 2(2) and Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that a person who commits a crime of intimidation under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act at night shall be subject to aggravated punishment up to one half of the punishment. Article 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that the purpose of punishing a person who commits a crime of intimidation in a group, habitually or at night is to punish a person who commits an act of intimidation in a night. Article 6 of the same Act provides separate provisions for punishing an attempted crime of intimidation under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and the penal provision for attempted crime of intimidation under Article 286 of the Criminal Act is also separately provided for in Article 286 of the Criminal Act. In light of the fact that the above crime under Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, which means that a crime of intimidation is committed under the time limit that the crime is committed at night. Thus, in order to establish the above crime, Article 283(2) of the Punishment of Violence shall not apply.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 1, 2(1) and (2), and 6 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Appellant

Defendant

Defense Counsel

Attorney Jeong-il

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul District Court Decision 2002No2886 delivered on August 28, 2002

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

1. The court below found the facts charged that the defendant tried to demand the return of Pyeongtaek-gun forest land from around 23:30 on August 27, 2001 by the victim's abnormal instruction, and that the defendant's act was threatened by the defendant's act of threat to the victim's abnormal behavior at the Asan-gun office around 10:00 on August 30, 200, and that the defendant's act of threat against the victim was committed during the night period of time, and "if there was abnormal use, he would have been prepared for three years since he had been aware that there was such an accident." The court below determined that Article 28 (1) of the Criminal Act was applied to the punishment of the victim at night, while the time when the intimidation against the victim was committed during the night period of time, Article 28 (2) of the Criminal Act was committed."