2015False67 Intimidation

A

Lower-class iron (prosecution) and stuffed trial

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

April 16, 2015

The accused shall notify publicly the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is a used car dealer.

On December 17, 2012, the Defendant sold a DNA car to the victim C (the age of 62) on December 17, 2012. However, on June 11, 2013, the Defendant filed a complaint with the Defendant by fraud or intimidation with respect to the sale and purchase of the said vehicle, and was notified of the Defendant’s attendance at the Defendant’s capacity as the Defendant in the said accusation case on July 17, 2013.

A. On July 17, 2013, the Defendant sent a text message to the victim’s cell phone (E) with the Defendant’s cell phone (E) around July 23:3, 2013, and then posted the victim’s cell phone (F). If the Defendant did not withdraw the complaint by this Note, the Defendant will then put the victim in the next week. The Defendant was given an answer from a legal expert to the effect that the Defendant constitutes an accusation. The Defendant was urged by sending a text message to the effect that the Defendant is imprisonment with prison labor due to bad nature of the crime.

나. 피고인은 2013. 7. 21. 15:04에 같은 방법으로 피해자의 휴대전화에 '고소 취하하고, 돈 포기하고 카렌스 저당 해지서류 드릴 테니 저당 해지하고, 모든 걸 끝내세요. 아니면 무고죄로 끝까지 가고 카렌스는 대포차 됩니다. 보험료 차액은 ABS와 무관하다.는 증빙자료가 있기에 무고죄가 성립됩니다. 저는 이제 라오스로 떠납니다. 제 입장에서는 사장님이 괘씸하지만 그동안 정을 생각해서 마지막으로 기회를 드리는 겁니다.'라는 내용의 문자메시지를 발송하여 피해자를 협박하였다.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the defendant, the following facts are acknowledged.

1) Around December 17, 2012, the Defendant arranged C to purchase Drens heavy and passenger cars. Since C is concerned about whether his creditor’s car is seized, the Defendant established a false collateral security on C’s car with the secured claim amount of KRW 2 million on December 24, 2012.

2) On June 11, 2013, C: (a) the Busan Police Station established on and around June 11, 2013: (b) the Defendant, while arranging for the purchase of the car rental car, entered the automobile insurance with the Defendant’s who was either the Defendant or the contracting party, and paid the insurance premium by entering the Defendant’s purchase of the car car with the Defendant’s who was not attached the ABS as the contractual party; (c) subsequently, the Defendant acquired KRW 41,250 in difference of the insurance premium by refunding the premium; (d) the Defendant set up a right to collateral security on the car of the car of the C to prevent the attachment of the car of the car rental car; and (e) the Defendant would sell the vehicle by auction if the Defendant would cancel the collateral security; and (e) in February 2013, C purchased the car of the car of the Defendant, but withdrawn the intention of purchase; and (e) the Defendant did not immediately transfer the remainder of the insurance premium to the Defendant’s name.

3) On July 26, 2013, the Defendant appeared at the Busan Police Station established on July 26, 2013, and returned H 41,250 won to Karen Motor Vehicle Automobile Insurance, but was erroneous in the name of the vehicle regardless of ABS discount, and C submitted aH statement to the effect that C terminated the automobile insurance and refunded the remainder to C after deducting the monthly premium for four months. The Defendant left the Republic of Korea on July 31, 2013, and entered the Republic of Korea on August 28, 2013.

4) On September 23, 2013, the first prosecutor of the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office rendered a decision that there was no suspicion of Defendant’s fraud and intimidation (Evidence of Evidence). C filed an appeal against the foregoing decision, but C received a decision of rejection from the Daejeon High Public Prosecutor’s Office on October 21, 2013. C filed an application for the ruling.

5) On December 4, 2013, the Defendant complained against C under suspicion, and C was subject to a decision on March 26, 2014 that C was not suspected (Evidence of Evidence).

B. According to the above facts, C filed a complaint against the Defendant as a crime of fraud or intimidation, but the Defendant was aware of the fact that it was difficult to recognize the Defendant’s suspicion with H’s written statement, and the Defendant filed a complaint against C with no accusation (Evidence conflict) after having received a decision on the content of C’s complaint, and the Defendant’s intent to terminate a false collective security right on the car owned by C cannot be deemed as a harm to C. Comprehensively taking account of this, it can be deemed that the use of the withdrawal of the complaint by the Defendant to file a complaint against the Defendant is a exchange for the legitimate exercise of the right, and even if the Defendant made a statement that is not accompanied by the exercise of the right, it cannot be deemed as intimidation to the extent that it would be acceptable under social norms. Moreover, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant made a threat by notifying and threatening the Defendant of any harm that may cause fear to C.

3. Conclusion

The facts charged in the instant case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime and thus a not-guilty verdict pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment shall be publicly announced.

Judges Lee Jae-hoon