beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, including the statement of the victim, the defendant's husband E, and the defendant is recognized as having the victim's husband E as the victim's husband E in order to visit the victim's case. The defendant's husband, stating "I wish to visit the victim's case. The contact is as follows: (a) put the part of the victim's body in the gap in the victim's office; (b) put the part in which the security guard stated the same contents (hereinafter "the second part") and transferred the part to E.
The Defendant, against the victim, committed the above act to the husband E with the meaning that he would know about the inhumanity relationship between the victim and the husband, which constitutes a threat of harm and injury as referred to in the crime of intimidation.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. Determination
A. In the crime of intimidation, the term "Intimidation" means a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to an ordinary person. As such, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require an actor's awareness of and citing that the perpetrator has notified such harm to such an extent, and do not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that has been notified. However, if the perpetrator's speech or behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional desire or temporary decentralization and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the perpetrator has an intention of intimidation or temporary decentralization, but whether there was a intent of intimidation or temporary decentralization should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 delivered on May 10, 1991, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, the court below duly adopted and investigated it.