협박
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is recognized in light of the following facts: (a) the defendant and the victim have expressed their desire for each other; (b) the surrounding circumstances; (c) the relationship between the defendant and the victim; and (d) the defendant's change of the defendant and the victim were found to have brought about and brought about the
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below ruled the defendant not guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the notice of harm and injury caused by a crime of intimidation.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant and the victim C in this part of the facts charged are the same representative of the “multi-family housing D” unit in two weeks.
On November 22, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 21:20, at the Yangju-si, brought about a monthly meeting of the senior citizens' association; (b) as a result of a conflict of opinions, the Defendant made intimidation by threatening the said victims, while keeping the transition in the main room of the senior citizens' association, and by threatening the said victims’ risk.
B. The lower court determined that: (a) even based on the victim’s statement, it is unclear whether the Defendant actually committed any threatening speech or behavior before the victim was excessively excessive to the victim; and (b) in light of various circumstances, the Defendant said that “the Defendant was satisfing the knife while leaving the knife at the time and knife the knife and knife the knife bed
“A” means that it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement to the investigative agency as it is; ③ at the time of the instant case, the chief executive officer E, who was present at the meeting, also at the time of the instant case, has made a 112 report in the court of original instance because the Defendant had excessively, but at the time, he did not make any threatening speech, such as the Defendant’s death and omission, etc.; ④ the Defendant appears to have made a statement that he did not make any threatening speech or behavior against the victim before or after a clerical error, and the victim also follows the Defendant at the time of the instant dispute.