공갈
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principle) constitutes a crime of attack and intimidation committed by the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, where the Defendant received property by allowing the other party to capture the victim beyond the permissible scope under the social norms, and thus, constitutes a crime of conflict. However, the court below acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant’s act appears not to exceed the permissible level or scope under the social norms, as a means of realizing the victim’s legitimate claim for damages against tort, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle
2. Determination
A. Based on the following legal principles and circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be recognized as charged of the instant case.
1) Intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation refers to notifying a threat of harm and injury likely to be frighten to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or interferes with the freedom of decision-making. A threat of bad faith is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the method of specification, and it would lead the other party to a certain harm and injury. Even if it is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, if the means and method of realizing a right exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms, even if it is used as a means of realizing a legitimate right, it shall be deemed that the implementation of the crime of threat is commenced. Here, whether certain act specifically exceeds the permissible level and scope under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, namely, the purpose and means selected as a whole.
2) As to the instant case, the Defendant maintained the marital relationship between C (H) and C (H) in around 2003, and maintained the marital relationship before the instant case, and between them, I (J) and H K (L).