It does not necessarily require that an act forced is subject to tangible intimidation.

It does not necessarily require that an act forced is subject to tangible intimidation.

Article 12 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and four others

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 68No156 decided Nov. 7, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal by the chief prosecutor of the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor's Office shall be considered to be the grounds for appeal.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below maintained the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance that held that the Defendants were forced to engage in fishing in the sea area under the control of North Korea leader, and were arrested, detained, and responded to the fact that the Defendants were aware of the physical drinking of the members of the North Korea leader, and the Defendants were forced to receive goods from the North Korea leader, but such acts were committed by the Defendants detained in the North Korea leader according to the instructions of the members of the North Korea leader or by the questioning of the members of the North Korea, which would cause unforeseeable harm to the lives and body of the Defendants. Such determination of the court below cannot be said to be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the Criminal Act as to forced acts. The Defendants did not appear to have been forced to receive information from the members of the North Korea, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants did not have been forced to return to the North Korea’s body, and that the Defendants did not have any sufficient means to defend themselves, even if so, to the extent that they were forced to receive information from the members of the North Korea’s.

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

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court