[1] The meaning of "Intimidation" in the crime of intimidation and the standard for determining the existence of an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation

[2] Requirements for a claim collection act to constitute a legitimate act

[3] 사채업자인 피고인이 채무자 갑에게, 채무를 변제하지 않으면 갑이 숨기고 싶어하는 과거 행적과 사채를 쓴 사실 등을 남편과 시댁에 알리겠다는 등의 문자메시지를 발송한 사안에서, 피고인에게 협박죄를 인정하는 한편 위와 같은 행위가 정당행위에 해당한다는 주장을 배척한 원심판단을 수긍한 사례

[1] Article 283 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 20 and 283 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 20 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1675) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 Delivered on March 25, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546 Delivered on August 25, 2006

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park In-bok

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010No4767 Decided January 26, 2011

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to notifying a person of harm that may cause fears, and in order to establish a crime of intimidation, there must be a concrete threat of harm that may be deemed to be at least possible, and even if there exists a threat of harm, if it is to the extent that it is acceptable by social norms in light of the custom and ethical sense of society, the crime of intimidation is not established. However, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or a threat of such meaning should be determined by considering not only the appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading up to such act, and the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Do2102, May 10, 1991; 2005Do329, March 25, 2005, etc.).

In addition, even though a creditor can perform acts necessary for the exercise of rights such as urging for debt collection, it should be in accordance with legal and legitimate procedures, and the right should be exercised in a reasonable way to the extent necessary to urge the debtor to voluntarily implement the obligation.

원심이 확정한 사실관계에 의하면, 사채업자인 피고인은 피해자에게, 채무를 변제하지 않으면 피해자가 숨기고 싶어하는 과거의 행적과 사채를 쓴 사실 등을 남편과 시댁에 알리겠다는 등의 문자메시지를 발송하였다는 것인바, 이는 피해자에게 공포심을 일으키기에 충분하다고 보아야 할 것이고, 그 밖에 피고인이 고지한 해악의 구체적인 내용과 표현방법, 피고인이 피해자에게 위와 같은 해악을 고지하게 된 경위와 동기 등 제반 사정 등을 종합하면, 피고인에게 협박의 고의가 있었음을 충분히 인정할 수 있으며, 피고인이 정당한 절차와 방법을 통해 그 권리를 행사하지 아니하고 피해자에게 위와 같이 해악을 고지한 것이 사회의 관습이나 윤리관념 등 사회통념에 비추어 용인할 수 있는 정도의 것이라고 볼 수는 없다.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion that the above act constitutes a justifiable act is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to intimidation and a justifiable act, and there is no other error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the fact-finding by the court below. The ground of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)