[2] The case holding that a series of acts that the representative of a civic organization made the relevant company notify the company that it would make the company pay advertising fees by inserting advertisements in a specific newspaper by threatening to do so for a specific company's product, and that it will execute the same advertisement equally without being biased on a certain company's website, shall not violate social rules or shall not be deemed legitimate in exercising its rights

[2] The case holding that a series of acts that the representative of a civic organization made the company notify that it would make the company pay advertising fees by inserting advertisements in a specific newspaper by threatening to do so for a specific company's product, and that the company will execute the same advertisement equally without being biased on a certain company's website does not violate social rules or it is difficult to view that the exercise of rights is legitimate

2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3. Defendant 1’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act regarding attempted coercion among the facts charged in the instant case, and Defendant 2’s acquittal.

Defendant 1 was elected as the representative at the speech meeting held on December 27, 2008, while he was working as the leader of the speech-based external cooperation team.

On December 29, 2008, Defendant 1 again stressed on the title "the representative elected at this meeting," "I would like to be sentenced to innocence at first, among the arguments made by the pledge and policy at the meeting, I would like to activate the first, second, I would like to activate the agenda, and I would like to see that I would like to have a lot of methods with the pressure of the prosecutor's office, yet I would not find any way more effective than now, I would like to activate the agenda through various methods, third, I would like to call for the company's participation in the trial, third, I would like to call for the company's participation in the election, and to select the company's participation in the election, and to make the company's participation in the election, and to make the company's participation in the election." The decision on May 21, 2009, I would have to first be able to start with the company's participation in the election, and to make the company's participation in the election campaign."

Defendant 1, around 13:00 on June 8, 2009, on the grounds that the victim's mining dynamics (jus) applied the advertisement to Joseon, Central, and East Asia, around Joseon, which was located in Tae-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, the Defendant 1 opened a briefing session with the content that the victim's mining dynamics (jus) suspended the advertisement in the Chosun, Central, and East Asia, or opened a briefing session with the content that the victim's mining dynamics (jus) expressed an unfair campaign for the products of the mining dynamics (jus) not later than the time when the advertisement is published equally in the Joseon, Central, and East

At that time, executives and employees of the above company, including the executive director, who was the general supervisor in charge of the publicity room, who became aware of the fact that the company was selected as the target company of the Buddhist Movement, were likely to suffer fatal loss in the operation of the company due to the expected sales reduction or the economic loss due to the deterioration of the company's image, etc. In the event that the Buddhist Movement was punished, and the suspension of advertisements on the Chosun, Central, and East Asia, which account for 70-80% of the total newspaper advertisement of the above company, would cause serious trouble in the company's business. Accordingly, Nonindicted 1 instructed the director of the publicity office, who declared the Buddhist Campaign to the head of the publicity office, to look directly into the reasons for the selection and the requirements.

At around 17:00 on June 8, 2009, Defendant 1 received contact from Nonindicted 2 and met Nonindicted 2 in the vicinity of the speech office in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul. After moving Nonindicted 2 to the intercompact shop in Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, the Seoul, and the Machip, Defendant 1 asked Nonindicted 2 to suspend advertising of Joseon, Central, and East Asia, if he selected Nonindicted 2 as a Machip company because the Machip was flue in the middle, Central, and East Asia, the head of Jongno-gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu, and the head of the Gu, the head of the Gu.

As a result, Defendant 1 promised Nonindicted 1, who drinked, due to a threat that he will do so if he does not meet the requirements as above, will cause him to perform an act without any legal obligation by holding a pop-up shop with the content that "I would like to make efforts to execute the advertisement equally in the future without being biased to any specific media in the future." On June 9, 2009, Defendant 1 posted the advertisement of KRW 21cm and 3780,000,000,000,000 in size nine short size, and paid the advertisement expenses to the newspaper of June 24, 2009 (the newspaper of June 29, 2009).

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2

1. Protocol concerning the examination of suspect by some prosecutors against the Defendants

1. Each protocol of prosecutorial statement on Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2

1. Investigation report (verification of details of payment of advertising expenses);

1. The detailed statement of transactions, remittance statement, each tax invoice, each short cover newspaper, and each tendency newspaper;

Article 324 (Action by Force) of the Criminal Act, Article 350 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act.

2. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

3. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

4. Determination of sentence;

A. Intimidation means that a person interferes with, or is not obligated to, exercise his/her right by means of violence or intimidation. Here, intimidation means objectively restricting the freedom of decision-making by a person, or notifying harm and injury likely to cause a person to feel hot enough to interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and intimidation is also the same as a threat of coercion as a means of crime of intimidation.

이 법원에서 적법하게 채택, 조사한 증거를 종합하면, 언소주는 2008. 5.경 ‘광우병쇠고기수입반대 촛불집회’의 영향으로 만들어진 ‘조중동 폐간 국민캠페인’이라는 인터넷 카페 모임이 그 전신(전신)으로서 당시 조선, 중앙, 동아일보에 광고를 낸 기업들을 상대로 광고를 내는 것에 대한 항의전화를 거는 방법으로 업무방해를 하여 관련자들이 검찰의 수사를 받게 되자, 2008. 6. 24. 그 이름을 현재의 언소주로 바꾼 사실, 광동제약(주)는 의약품, 건강드링크, 건강식품 등 주로 소비재를 판매하는 회사로 대표적인 상품으로는 비타500, 옥수수 수염차, 광동쌍화탕, 광동탕, 거북표우황청심환, 광동경옥고 등이 있고, 광고는 연 100억 원의 예산으로 방송광고에 85억 원, 일간신문과 무가지에 15억 원 정도 사용되는데 일간신문과 무가지의 비중은 서로 비슷하며, 일간신문에 대한 광고 중 조선, 중앙, 동앙일보에 대한 광고가 70~80% 정도 차지하고 있는바, 2008년 5월경부터 2009년도 초반까지 조중동 폐간 국민캠페인 및 언소주의 활동의 영향으로 광동제약(주)에도 조선, 중앙, 동아일보에 게재한 광고로 인한 항의전화가 꾸준히 이어졌지만, 조선, 중앙, 동아일보에 대한 제품광고는 회사 영업에 결정적인 역할을 하고 있었으므로 위와 같은 항의전화에도 불구하고 위 3개 신문에 제품광고를 계속 내고 있는 사실, 피고인 1은 별지 기자회견문을 토대로 기자회견을 할 당시 불매운동의 첫 대상기업으로 오로지 광동제약(주) 한 개 기업을 지목하면서 광동제약(주)가 조선일보에 광고를 중단하거나, 한겨레, 경향신문에 동등한 광고집행을 할 때까지 불매운동에 들어갈 것이라고 밝힌 사실, 이러한 사실을 접한 광동제약(주)는 회사의 실질적인 정책결정을 하고 있는 공소외 1 상무이사의 주도로 같은 날 홍보실 간부들과 대책회의를 가지고 조선, 중앙, 동아일보에 대한 광고중단은 회사영업을 하지 말라는 것과 마찬가지이니 절대로 받아들일 수 없다고 의견을 모은 후 홍보실 공소외 2 부장에게 언소주측 사람을 만나 이야기를 들어보라고 지시한 사실, 피고인 1은 같은 날 공소외 2와 만난 자리에서 광동제약(주)가 조선일보에 다른 신문보다 11배나 광고를 많이 실어 첫 불매운동대상이 되었다고 말해 주었고, 공소외 2는 유독 광동제약(주)를 불매운동대상으로 삼은데 대하여 억울함을 호소하면서 조선, 중앙, 동아일보에 대한 광고중단은 어렵다는 것을 밝히고, 한겨레, 경향신문에 광고를 내면 불매운동을 철회하는 것인지, 광고는 어떤 내용을 말하는 것인지 등을 문의한 사실, 이에 피고인 1은 프레시안 등 다른 신문들도 있지 않느냐고 하면서 불매운동을 막기 위하여는 빠른 시일 내에 한겨레, 경향신문에 제품광고를 내라고 하면서 광고문구에 ‘소비자의 의견에 귀를 기울이겠습니다’라는 문구를 넣고, 회사 홈페이지에도 ‘공정하게 광고를 집행하겠다’는 취지의 팝업창을 띄우라고 요구하였고, 이러한 내용에 관한 공문이 필요하냐는 공소외 2의 질문에 피고인 1은 공문은 당연히 필요하니 회사 직인이 찍힌 공문을 보내달라고 말한 사실, 그리하여 그날부터 다음날까지 사이에 피고인 1이 보내 온 합의사항 중 몇 개의 문구를 바꾸어 달라는 광동제약(주)의 의사가 반영된 “1. 조중동과 정론매체에 광고하는 것을 동등하게 집행한다. 2. 내일자(6월 10일)에 경향신문과 한겨레에 광고를 게재한다. 그 광고에는 ‘광동제약은 항상 소비자들의 의견에 귀를 기울입니다’라는 취지의 글이 들어갈 것이다. 3. 홈페이지에 팝업을 통해 향후 광고집행에 있어서 편중하지 않게 해 나갈 것을 밝히겠다.”는 내용의 합의사항이 작성된 사실, 그 내용 중 광동제약(주)의 의사가 반영된 부분은 2항의 ‘항상’이라는 문구와 3항의 ‘편중하지 않게’라는 문구인 사실, 공소외 2는 당시 합의사항 중 경향신문과 한겨레신문에 6월 10일에 광고를 게재하는 것이 가능한지를 묻자 피고인 1은 서두르면 가능하다고 하였고, 실제로 6월 10일자로 광고가 게재된 사실, 피고인 1은 2009. 6. 9. 11:38경 언소주 카페 공지사항에 불매운동의 철회를 요청한다는 글을 올린 사실, 피고인 1이 기자회견을 한 후부터 광동제약(주)에 많은 항의전화가 걸려 오다가 피고인 1이 불매운동의 철회를 요청한 시각 이후인 같은 날 18:00경 무렵이 되자 항의전화가 잦아졌고, 그 후로는 왜 언소주 활동에 굴복했느냐는 항의전화가 걸려 온 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

In light of the above facts, Defendant 1’s summary of the press speech announced by Defendant 1 ought to be advertised to prevent the unrecognizable campaign on the products of the main companies after the advertisement of Joseon, Central, and East Asia, and he mainly sells consumption materials, and the advertisement has a substantial influence on the business of the company, and around May 2008, he experienced the acts of interference with the business of the company using the telephone sign for the companies posted in the Central, East, and East Asia, and only one company engaged in the advertisement on the homepage of the Republic of Korea (this case’s pop-up campaign) without any specific influence on the advertisement of the company’s Pop-up campaign (the first sale of the company’s Pop-up campaign). As such, if the act of the company’s pop-up campaign would be punished, it may not be seen that it would interfere with the business of the company’s pop-up campaign, the first sale of the company’s Pop-out advertisements would not be able to be seen as a defect in the media (the first sale campaign).

B. Whether Defendant 1 was a legitimate act: As part of the consumer movement, we examine the allegation that Defendant 1’s instant act does not contravene social rules or is justifiable in exercising rights.

The legitimate activities of civic groups, etc. for the performance of their public interest should be desirable and encouraged, but even if their activities for the performance of such objectives should not go beyond restrictions inherent in the restrictions or freedom under Acts and subordinate statutes, and the limitation of freedom of such activities should be determined in the correlation between the contents and nature of the object against which they oppose, and the method and degree of opposite activities. Thus, in order to achieve their public interest, it is permitted to publicize their arguments against the general public and to punish the activities for the use of various appeals by means of appeal to the other party's free decision (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da51091, Jul. 13, 2001).

In light of the series of acts in which Defendant 1’s reporter conference expressed in the instant case had luminous agents pay advertising fees by posting an advertisement at Hanbre and Modin newspapers, and had op-up workers hold a pop-up shop on the homepage of the Maddong Pharmacopoeia (ju), it can be seen that the contents of the Maddong drug would not carry out an election campaign solely on the ground that the Maddong drug, without mentioning at all about whether there is a de facto defect in the product made by the Maddong drug, without mentioning at all about whether there is a defect in the product made by the Maddong drug, and it is difficult to see that the Maddong drug, without mentioning at all, expressed that the Maddong drug, without advertising in a newspaper that is not a Maddong medium, was placed in the name of the 90 company prior to conducting the Maddong dog, and that the contents of the proposal (Presentation No. 8-1) sent to the Maddong medicine in the name of the Maddong.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s act does not violate social rules or is justifiable in exercising his rights.

C. Whether there was a mistake in law: Defendant 1 asserts that there was no perception of illegality and there was a justifiable reason since it was caused to this case based on the opinions of legal experts and court rulings.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court on February 19, 2009 concerning the act of interference with business through telephone calls to companies posted in the Joseon, Central, and East Asia, which started around May 2008 as one of the main grounds of the above arguments, Defendant 1’s explanation of the judgment, such as obstruction of business, etc., of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da5024, 2008Gadan5623 (mergers) on February 19, 2009, the identity of the consumer of the media can be mobilized for the purpose of changing the editing policies of the media and for the purpose of promoting the objectives pursued by them, but even in such a case, the participants are allowed to publish their opinions to the general public in order to make an advertisement to be inserted in the Joseon, Central, and East Asia’s newsletter, or to publish their opinions to the advertisers, and to publish their opinions to the advertisers in the website or to freely report their opinions to the advertisers by means of the advertiser’s activities.

However, in full view of the circumstances shown in this case, when Defendant 1 talks with Non-Indicted 2, Defendant 1 did not have a conversation as to what kind of broadcast media, and what kind of broadcast advertising is, and why why is, it did not have been explained to Non-Indicted 2 as to why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, why is, what organization and why is, why is, why is, what kind of group and why is, why the speech owner who works as the representative of Defendant 1 is. As such, Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that Defendant 1’s act of publishing an advertisement in the Mabdong newspaper was not only consenting to or acceptable in his opinion on the media media of Defendant 1, but also it was reasonable to recognize that it would cause a pop-up advertisement on the company’s website.

Therefore, Defendant 1's above assertion cannot be accepted because there was no perception of illegality or there was a justifiable reason for it.

D. In the case of the crime of health conflict, coercion, and attack, it is an important factor to determine whether there has been an agreement with the victim in general, and whether there is a possibility to block the same crime in the future. In this case, there is no agreement with the victim, and Defendant 1 asserts the legality of the act up to this court, and thus, is likely to repeat the crime.

However, Defendant 1 sought a campaign to the extent that it does not interfere with the business of an individual company, and caused this case. The main point of this campaign is that it was in the same advertisement with respect to Defendant 1 rather than that it was in the corporate collapse through the cessation of advertisement in the Joseon, Central, and East Asia, and the sales of advertising products, and that it was in the same advertisement with respect to the media claimed by Defendant 1, rather than that it was in the corporate collapse through the purchase of advertising products, Defendant 1 had been in the equal advertisement with respect to the media. In the event that he dealt with the articles related to luminous drugs, he was in excess of the monthly advertising budget of the luminous drugs, or he was in excess of the standard for the legal order of the Republic of Korea to respect the legal order by taking into account the fact that Defendant 1's request for the construction of the standards for legitimate activities by the court through the judgment on the case, such as obstruction of business affairs, etc.

A. Facts charged

The Defendants jointly attempted to force Nonindicted 1, who was frighten to not withdraw the frighten movement without meeting the requirements of Defendant 1, to stop advertisements of the Joseon, Central and East Asia on or around June 8, 2009, and to stop advertising of the frightened incident due to the fear of economic loss caused by the frighten movement, as in the facts acknowledged earlier against Defendant 1. However, the Defendants were refused to do so and did not have any legal obligation.

B. Determination: The crime of coercion refers to the act of obstructing a person's exercise of right by violence or intimidation or allowing him to perform an act without any obligation. Here, intimidation refers to the act of objectively restricting the freedom of decision-making, or notifying harm and injury likely to be potable enough to interfere with the freedom of decision-making. In full view of Defendant 1's meetings of the press conference of this case and the luminous medication immediately thereafter, the delivery of joining company through Nonindicted 2 and the intention of Defendant 1, in full view of the series of processes such as the communication of the press conference of this case, and the communication of the company through Nonindicted 2, and the intention of Defendant 1, as at the time when the press conference was made, Defendant 1 suspended or suspended an advertisement in Joseon, Central, East, and East, and an advertising campaign until it was published equally in the tendency newspaper, and Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 did not know that it was about 20 minutes in the process of conversation between Defendants 1 and 2, and that it was not about Defendant 1's own direction and its contents.

In light of the circumstances, Defendant 1’s purpose of this campaign is not to suspend advertising for Joseon, central, and East Asia, but to have been on the same advertisement for Han-gu and Go-gu newspapers as claimed by Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 also seems to have requested Nonindicted 2 to post advertisements and to post the Internet pop-up shop with the focus on this point. Thus, Defendant 1’s demand for the suspension of advertising for Chosun, central, and East Asia and circumstances that Defendant 2 together with Defendant 1 in the process do not constitute intimidation in the crime of coercion, and there is insufficient evidence to prove that there was a partial threat. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is not guilty of this part of the facts charged in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Defendant 2

A. Facts charged

Defendant 2, as the head of the speech-based media action team, committed the crime acknowledged earlier jointly with Defendant 1.

B. Determination

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined in this court, Defendant 2 attended the press room at the request of Defendant 1 at the time of the press room and photographs the press room using PD 170 cameras, and Defendant 1 was able to recognize the fact that Defendant 1 was at the time of the press room Nonindicted 2. However, Defendant 1’s program of the press room at the press room at the press room at the time of the press room at the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room, and Defendant 1 was the lead of Defendant 1 in the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press room at the time of the press conference at the time of the press room at the time of Defendant 2’s request for the shooting of Defendant 2.

If there are some circumstances, it is difficult to see that Defendant 2 participated in Defendant 1’s criminal act solely on the ground that Defendant 2 was at the scene with Defendant 1, and there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, Defendant 1 is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

3. Regarding the part found guilty of Defendant 1, the prosecutor applied the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., other than the Criminal Act, to the applicable provisions on the premise that Defendant 2 and co-principal committed a crime. However, since there is a ground for recognizing the conviction of Defendant 1 who committed a crime, this part of the judgment does not separately be pronounced.

Judges Kim Jong-soo