The extent of intimidation which can be accepted as a means of exercising rights under social norms.

피고인이 공소외 1에게 빼앗겼던 토지를 되찾는 과정에서 피고인의 위 토지 환원요구에 불응하는 동 공소외인에게 법에 호소하여 잡아 넣어서라도 땅을 되찾고 말겠다는등 다소 언짢은 말을 하였다 하여도 이것이 사회통념상 권리행사의 범위를 일탈한 공갈행위가 된다고 할 수 없다.

Article 20 of the Criminal Act

November 25, 1980, 79Do2565 decided Nov. 25, 1980 (a summary of summary of the decision and a summary of summary of the decision, Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act, 139 pages)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor against Defendant 2 and Defendant 1

Busan District Court (80Gohap844)

All of the appeals by the prosecutor against the defendant 2 and the appeal by the defendant 1 are dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 2 is as follows: the court below acknowledged that the defendant 2 knew that the non-indicted 1 had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the site of Kimhae-gun, Kim Jong-gun (hereinafter omitted) by using the personal seal impression of the deceased non-indicted 2's forged non-indicted 1, and used it to take money and valuables free from the name, and found the same person as the house of non-indicted 1 in the same Ri on July 20, 1979, and pointed out the above facts to the same person; if the above facts were not granted to the non-indicted 1 in 328, 139 (hereinafter omitted), the court below decided that the defendant 2 was not guilty of the above facts charged on August 30, 30 of the same year by being issued the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer on the above 139,000 won, and the court below decided that the defendant 1 was not guilty of the above facts charged by the non-indicted 1 in accordance with social norms.

However, if all of the statements made by Nonindicted Party 1 in the original trial court, the prosecutor, and the judicial police officer's handling of affairs with respect to Nonindicted Party 1, and each of the statements made by Nonindicted Party 3 and 4, the judicial police officer's handling of affairs with respect to Nonindicted Party 3 and 4, the above facts charged against Defendant 2 can be recognized. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts against the rules of evidence that it is impossible to believe all of the above evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 was that Defendant 1 did not commit a crime at the time of the original trial, but the lower court erred by misapprehending facts and adversely affected the judgment.

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal was examined, and the non-indicted 1's statement at the court below's 17th trial and the non-indicted 1's statement prepared by the prosecutor and the non-indicted 1's judicial police officer, which correspond to the above facts charged. The non-indicted 1's 7th trial court's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 13's non-indicted 1111111'.

그렇다면 피고인 2는 공소외 1로부터 뺏겼던 그의 땅인 이건 대139평을 되찾은 것이지 그를 공갈하여 그의 대지를 뺏은 것이라고 할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 그 되찾는 과정에서 위와 같은 다소 언짢은 말을 하였다 해서 이것이 사회통념상 권리행사의 범위를 일탈한 공갈행위가 된다고 할 수는 없을 것이다.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above facts charged return to the absence of evidence to acknowledge it, and thus, it should be pronounced not guilty. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which made such a conclusion shall not be erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

Next, considering the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, it is sufficient to acknowledge the criminal facts at the time of original adjudication against Defendant 1, and there is no other evidence to deem that the court below erred in its fact-finding.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just, and since the appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant 1 is groundless, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ahn Yong-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice)