Defendant 1

Lighting Round

Attorney Cho Jae-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Defendant 1 is a regular member of the Internet portal site, following the △△ Dong National Camp (hereinafter referred to as “△ Maeng”), and Defendant 2 was a member of the above Kaeng Kaeng and was a member of the operation committee;

On November 18, 2008, Defendant 1 appeared to have been at the victim's 14:0 to 15:30, the victim's 1701-1 "Isk't know about the victim's faces," "Isk't know about the victim's face," "Isk't know about the victim's body," "Isk't know about the victim's face," "Isk't know about the victim's body," "Isk't know about the victim's face," "Isk't know about the victim's face," "Isk't know about the victim's body," "Isk't know about the victim's face," "Isk't open to the court," and "Isk't open to the prosecutor's office," and "Isk't know about the victim's body," "Isk't open to the prosecutor's office."

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2, 3, and 4 and part of Nonindicted 5’s legal statement

1. Statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 by the prosecution (including the part concerning the non-prosecution 3 and 2)

1. Statement made by the police on Nonindicted 3

1. Each description of the statements prepared by Nonindicted Party 2

1. Investigative reports (in relation to witness assaulting, attaching a sign on Dog Dog Dog Dong), each statement in a copy of the indictment;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendants: Articles 5-9(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, 260(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act, Article 5-9(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 283(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (a intimidation for the purpose of return)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Code / Articles 40 and 50 [The crimes of assault and Intimidation for Retaliatory Purposes (the crimes committed by the defendants are continuously conducted at the same place with the same opportunity for a short period of time, so it is reasonable to see that the crimes have been evaluated as one act under the law and are regarded as a conceptual concurrence) of the Criminal Code.]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following grounds for sentencing are considered in favor of the Defendants)

1. The defendants and the defendants' defense counsel

A. The occurrence of the instant case

Defendant 1, around 14:00 on November 18, 2008, at the court of Seoul Central District Court, Seo-gu 311, Defendant 1 opened and opened a statutory entrance to the toilet for the purpose of interfering with the business of the advertisement interruption pressure, and opened the toilet before the court, and the victim Non-Indicted 2 is a dispute. Defendant 1 separated from Non-Indicted 2, △△, △△ and its located in △△ and its location, and told Non-Indicted 1 to the effect that “Non-Indicted 2 should go against Non-Indicted 1’s opinion” and “Non-Indicted 1 should go against Non-Indicted 2’s opinion.” The defense counsel of Defendant 1 and Non-Indicted 2 should go against Non-Indicted 1’s opinion that “Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2’s opinion that Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 3’s opinion that Non-Indicted 1 should go to the direction of the city of △△△, and that Non-Indicted 1 and she should go to Defendant 2’s of the city of k, k.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 told Nonindicted 2 that “A may biffly commit murder,” Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 had sexual intercourse between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2, but Defendant 1 did not engage in the same bath as the criminal facts indicated in the judgment against Nonindicted 2. At the time, Nonindicted 2 told Defendant 1 “a bad fly interfered with a company’s business operation, malicious terrorism, and bomb.”

한편, 이러한 모습을 본 □□□ 회원 공소외 4는 피고인 1을 화장실로 데리고 갔고, □□□ 회원 공소외 5와 함께 담배를 피우려고 법정 밖을 나갔다가 법정으로 돌아오던 피고인 2는, 피고인 1이 화장실로 들어가는 모습만을 보고, 피고인 1과 공소외 2 사이에 위와 같은 언쟁이 벌어진 상황은 전혀 보지 못한 채 공소외 2를 바라보았다. 그런데 갑자기 공소외 2가 피고인 2에게 “뭘 째려봐”라고 말하여 피고인 2는 “지금 저한테 말 하시는 거예요?”, “너 말조심해라, 아무한테나 반말하고 그러지 마라”는 취지로 이야기하였다. 이에 공소외 2가 피고인 2에게 “내 맘이다. 이 새끼야”라고 말하자, 피고인 2는 순간적으로 흥분하여 공소외 2 부근으로 가서, 팔꿈치를 들이대는 행위를 취하였다. 그러나 피고인 2는 공소외 2를 향하여 주먹을 휘두르거나 공소외 2의 목에 닿게 팔꿈치를 들이댄 적은 없다.

B. Denial of whether the act constitutes a crime of assault, intimidation, and assault or intimidation

Defendant 1 only talked on a good reputation with respect to Nonindicted Company 1, and did not talk with Nonindicted Party 2. Even if she made the above story to Nonindicted Party 2, it is merely an expression of a good reputation with respect to Nonindicted Company 1, and it is not an expression that would cause fear to Nonindicted Party 2. In addition, Defendant 1 did not take a bath to Nonindicted Party 2 as indicated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, and even if she made the statement to that effect, Defendant 1 was cut down by traffic accident and cut down under the left kne and did not wear any satisfaction, Defendant 1 is a physically handicapped person of Grade 3 who is unable to lead a normal life without wearing any satisfaction, and Nonindicted Party 2 is a person with a body of about 180 cm in length, about 80 km in body, and about 80 km in body at the time of the occurrence of this case, Defendant 1’s speech and intent at the time of the occurrence of this case, etc., may not be considered as a direct and indirect threat of harm and injury.

In addition, Defendant 2 did not display a food for Nonindicted 2, and it is difficult to deem that there was an exercise of a tangible force on Nonindicted 2’s body due to Defendant 2’s behavior toward Nonindicted 2 to blue his arms.

(c) Denial of retaliation purposes

The Defendants’ act as described in the above “A” was merely a contingency in the process of preventing a dispute between Nonindicted Party 2 and △△△, and the Defendants, the extension of Nonindicted Party 2, had been caused by the first half to the Defendants, who were the extension of Nonindicted Party 2, and thus, the Defendants did not have any purpose of retaliation against the statements and testimony made in the investigation agency of Nonindicted Party

D. Denial of public offering relationship

Defendant 2 did not know at all that he had been punished between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2. In addition, Defendant 1 did not have known that Defendant 2 had known that he had committed the same act as the stated in the foregoing paragraph “A” against Nonindicted 2. Therefore, Defendant 1’s act and Defendant 2’s act are separate acts, and there was no intention of conspiracy among the Defendants.

E. Denial of separate intimidation

Even if all facts charged against the Defendants are recognized, the same time and place as the assault offense are merely a verbal abuse conducted under the single criminal intent of the assault, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the part of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crime, etc.) due to intimidation by the Defendants is not established.

2. Determination:

A. Whether the Defendants were aware and acted as stated in the facts constituting the crime

살피건대, ① 이 사건 발생 경위 및 당시 상황에 대한 공소외 2, 3의 각 진술은 수사기관에서부터 이 사건 법정에 이르기까지 대체로 일관된 반면, 피고인들의 수사기관에서의 진술과 이 사건 법정에서의 진술은 일관되지 않고 피의자신문조서 등에 기재되어 있지 않은 구체적 내용을 이 사건 법정에 이르러 비로소 주장하고 있는 점(피고인 1은, ㉮ 2008. 11. 27. 경찰 조사시, ☆☆와 공소외 2 사이에 언쟁이 벌어지고 있는 것을 보고 ‘☆☆’에게 누구인데 그러냐고 묻자 ☆☆가 증인으로 나온 공소외 1 회사사람이라고 말하였는데, 공소외 2가 자신에게 “당신 뭐야”라고 말을 하여 할 말이 없고 기가 막혀 대꾸도 하지 않고 ☆☆에게 그만두라고 말린 후 화장실로 가서 볼일을 보고 다시 법정으로 들어갔을 뿐이라고 진술하다가, ㉯ 2009. 3. 18. 검찰 조사시, ☆☆에게 “◇◇가 사람들에게 이미지가 좋지 않다”, “법정에서 들어보니 ◇◇는 검찰에서 증인신청도 안했는데 나와서 피해를 입었다고 주장한다”는 말을 하였는데 공소외 2가 이 말을 공소외 1 회사 직원인 자신을 향하여 하는 말로 듣고 “당신 뭐야”라고 하자, 나이 어린 사람에게 반말을 들어 흥분되어 얼굴이 붉게 된 후, 화장실로 가서 약 10여분간 볼일을 보고 법정에 들어갔을 뿐이라고 진술하였으며, ㉰ 이 사건 법정에서는 자신이 □□□ 회원인 공소외 4와 ☆☆에게 ◇◇에 대한 평판을 말하자 이 말을 듣던 공소외 2가 갑자기 자신에게 “당신 뭐야”라고 말을 하여, 공소외 2에게 “나이가 몇 살인데 반말을 하냐”고 이야기하면서 공소외 2와 몇 차례 고성이 오고간 사실이 있다고 진술하였다. 또한 피고인들의 변호인은 이 법정에 이르러, 공소외 2가 당시 피고인 1에게 “조직적으로 기업의 영업을 방해하는 나쁜 놈들, 악질 테러리스트, 폭도”라는 말을 하였다고 주장하고 있다. 한편 피고인 2는, 2009. 3. 16. 검찰조사시, 공소외 2가 자신을 향해 “뭘 쳐다봐”라고 반말을 하여, “지금 나한테 반말하시는 거냐”라고 묻자, 공소외 2가 다시 뭐라고 말을 하여 순간 화가 나 공소외 2의 얼굴을 향해 팔꿈치를 들이대었고, 팔꿈치를 들이대는 행동을 하면서 공소외 2에게 무언가 말을 한 것 같다고 진술하였고, 이 사건 법정에서는, 공소외 2가 아무한테나 반말하지 마라는 취지의 자신의 말에 대하여 “내 맘이다. 이 새끼야”라고 말하여 순간적으로 흥분해 공소외 2에게 팔꿈치를 들이대는 행동을 하였을 뿐이라고 진술하였다), ② 피고인 1은 이 사건 법정에서 공소외 2가 자신에게 “조직적으로 기업의 영업을 방해하는 나쁜 놈들, 악질 테러리스트, 폭도”라는 말을 하였고, 자신과 공소외 2 사이에 고성이 오갔다고 주장하고, 피고인 2는 이 사건 법정에서 공소외 2가 자신에게 “내 맘이다. 이 새끼야”라는 말을 하였다고 주장하나, 당시 상황을 목격한 공소외 3은 피고인들이 공소외 2에게 일방적으로 욕설을 하였고, 공소외 2가 피고인들에 대항하여 욕설을 하거나 대꾸를 할 만한 상황이 아니었다고 일관되게 진술하고 있으며 공소외 2의 진술도 공소외 3의 위 진술과 부합하는 점, ③ 피고인 2의 주장처럼 거리를 두고서 공소외 2를 바라보았을 뿐인데, 공소외 2가 피고인 2에게 “뭘 째려봐”라고 말하였다는 것은 쉽게 납득이 가지 않는 점(공소외 2는 피고인 2가 소파에 앉아있는 자신의 얼굴을 향해 허리를 숙이고 얼굴을 들이대기에 “뭐야” 또는 “뭘봐”라고 이야기하였다고 진술하고 있고, 공소외 3도 피고인 2가 공소외 2가 앉아있는 의자에 바로 다가와서 면전에서 욕설을 하였다는 취지로 증언하고 있다), ④ 피고인 2가 공소외 2와 피고인 1 사이에 있었던 일을 목격하지 아니하였음에도 불구하고, 피고인 2와 공소외 2 사이에 시비가 있었다는 것은 쉽사리 믿기 어려울뿐더러, 피고인 1이 공소외 2에게 욕설을 할 당시 피고인 2가 그 자리에 함께 있었다고 공소외 2, 3이 수차례에 걸쳐 분명히 진술하고 있는 점, ⑤ 공소외 2는 이 사건 법정에서 당시 피고인 2의 팔꿈치가 자신의 목에 닿았고 자신은 피고인 2가 당시 입고 있던 옷의 감촉까지도 기억할 수 있을 정도라고 진술하고 있는 점 등을 고려할 때, 피고인들 및 피고인들의 변호인이 주장하는 이 사건 발생 경위는 믿기 어렵고, 피고인들이 판시 범죄사실 기재와 같은 말과 행동을 한 사실은 모두 인정된다고 할 것이다.

B. Whether it constitutes a crime of assault or intimidation

(1) Whether the act constitutes a crime of intimidation

Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel feel, and thus, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element thereof does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites that the perpetrator informss such a degree of harm and injury. However, if the perpetrator’s speech and behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional desire or temporary decentralization and it is objectively evident that there is no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it shall not be recognized as an act of intimidation or a temporary decentralization. However, whether there was an intent of intimidation or a threat of such meaning should be determined by comprehensively considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act, relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546, Aug. 25, 2006). In addition, a intimidation is not likely to cause harm and injury to a third party, even if it is closely related to the other party himself and it does not require any harm and injury to the other party.

In light of the fact that Defendant 1 could have sufficiently known that Defendant 1’s employees of Nonindicted Company 1 could incur mental and material injury directly or indirectly, such as telephone, false orders, posting the real name and contact number of Nonindicted Company 1’s employees on the Internet, and suspending the web service through the attack on Nonindicted Company 1’s Internet site, etc., which had already been accompanied by the desire to demand the suspension of advertisement by Nonindicted Company 1 Company 1, Defendant 1 said that “I would start a pressure again to stop advertisement more strongly once” (Defendant 1 argued that the above horses were made to Non-Party 2, not only on Non-Party 2, but also on Non-Party 1’s members, but also on the nearest distance at the time, Non-Party 2 could not cause fear of harm and injury to Defendant 1’s employees, considering the fact that Non-Party 1 was present as a witness.”

In addition, Defendant 1’s statement to Nonindicted 2, in full view of the following facts: “The young guest head of the Dong, who was unsatisfying, is unsatisfying,” “I will immediately memory the face,” “I can live properly in the future”, “I will not satisfy in the future,” “I will see that I would like to know about the very hot satisfy”, “I would like to know about the very hot satisfy”, “I would like to know about the number of the Defendants who were in the vicinity of Nonindicted 2 at the time when I would speak, I would like to make it difficult to view that the above statement made by Defendant 1 was objectively harmful, in light of the mere emotional or temporary expression or surrounding circumstances, or that I would not have any intention to threaten.”

(2) Whether the crime of assault is committed

Even if the act of exposing or throwing a hand or an object, as the victim may take a bath near the victim, does not directly contact the victim's body, constitutes an assault as an unlawful use of force against the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do1406, Feb. 13, 1990). Defendant 2’s act of putting Nonindicted 2 with alcohol and blusing blus in the items of Nonindicted 2 on several occasions towards Nonindicted 2 constitutes the exercise of tangible force as stated in the crime of assault.

(c) Recognition of retaliation purposes;

① 피고인 1은 공소외 2가 공소외 1 회사 직원으로서 □□□ 회원들의 광고중단 운동으로 인해 피해를 입었다는 취지의 내용을 증언하기 위해 법정에 나온 사람이라는 사실을 알면서, 법정 밖에서 공소외 2에게 “◇◇는 이번에 검찰이 증인 신청도 안 했는데 자진해서 나와 피해를 입었다고 주장하는 거잖아”, “아주 정신 못 차렸어”, “제대로 당해봐야 정신차리지”, “이번에 다시 한번 제대로 강하게 광고중단 압박을 다시 시작하겠다”라고 먼저 말하였고, 공소외 2가 위 말을 듣고 “지금 나한테 협박하는 것입니까”라며 응수하자, “아직 제대로 안 당해 봐서 뜨거운 맛을 모르는 구만”이라고 말한 점, ② 피고인 2도 위와 같은 상황을 목격하고 공소외 2가 공소외 1 회사 직원이라는 사실을 알고 있으면서, 먼저 앉아있는 공소외 2에 가까이 다가가 선채로 허리를 숙여 공소외 2의 얼굴을 향해 자신의 얼굴을 들이대어 쳐다보고, 이에 공소외 2가 ＂뭘봐“ 또는 ”뭐야“라고 말하자 폭력을 행사한 점, ③ 위 폭행, 협박이 이루어진 장소가 법정 바로 밖이고, 당시 공소외 2는 증언을 하기 위해 대기하고 있는 상황이었던 점 등을 고려할 때, 공소외 2가 피고인들에게 먼저 반말을 하여 이에 피고인들이 순간적으로 흥분을 한 나머지 위 폭행, 협박을 하였다고 보기는 어렵고, 오히려 이미 수사기관에 광고중단압력 업무방해사건에 대한 수사단서를 제공하였고, 그 형사재판에 증인으로 출석하여 그 피고인들에게 불리한 진술을 할 것으로 예상되는 공소외 2에 대하여, 피고인들이 의도적으로 먼저 시비를 거는 과정에서 폭행, 협박이 이루어졌다고 봄이 상당하므로, 결국 위와 같은 취지로 폭행, 협박을 한 피고인들에게는 증인에 대한 보복목적이 넉넉히 인정된다고 할 것이다.

(d) Whether the person is a co-principal;

Article 30 of the Criminal Code provides that two or more persons jointly commit a crime, and the subjective requirements of the actor's intent of joint processing are the same. However, the intent of joint processing lies in the recognition of joint processing in order to move one's own intent to implement one's own intention as a whole to commit a specific criminal act among them, and it does not necessarily require any mother's intention in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do4437 delivered on October 28, 2004, etc.).

Considering the fact that Defendant 1 was the same as Defendant 2 at the site of intimidation against Nonindicted 2, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 1 would have to make an advertisement interruption campaign against Nonindicted Company 1 more strong, Defendant 1’s speech, Defendant 1’s attitude that Defendant 1 would have been blicked while threatening Nonindicted 2, Defendant 1 took away from Defendant 1 to the toilet, and Defendant 2’s assault was committed at the site of intimidation, Defendant 1 appears to have been close to Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2 at the time of the assault, it is reasonable to view that the assault and intimidation, such as the criminal facts written in the judgment of the Defendants, are continuously connected in time, at least a series of acts that have been continuously connected with the Defendants, and have been made under implied and orderly communication among the Defendants.

E. Determination as to the relation of acceptance of crime

When a person notifies of a assault and immediately uses a assault, the crime of intimidation shall be absorptiond as an act of assault. However, considering the content, circumstance, degree, and statutory punishment of the crime of intimidation of the Defendants in this case, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act of intimidation in this case was absorptiond as an act of assault: Provided, That in cases where intimidation and assault against Nonindicted 2 were committed against the same victim at the same time and at the same place in the same opportunity, in the situation where time comes to contact, it is reasonable to evaluate each of the above acts as one of the acts in law, and therefore, the crime of assault and intimidation for retaliation in the judgment in this case is in a mutually competitive relationship.

The fundamental rights of the people and the guarantee of free democratic fundamental order, which are one of the highest values of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, should be achieved through the judgment of the judiciary ultimately. The judgment of the judiciary cannot guarantee legitimacy without the premise of discovery of substantial truth through trial activities. The discovery of substantial truth can be conducted through active and free verification activities of the parties centering on the public trial, and the crime of retaliation against the witness, etc. is ultimately highly likely to cause criticism that makes it difficult to guarantee fundamental rights of the people and free democratic fundamental order by hindering the judgment of the judiciary through the obstruction of free verification activities.

Article 5-9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that a person who commits a harmful act, such as injury, violence, or intimidation, including murder of a witness for the purpose of retaliation, shall be subject to aggravated punishment. As seen earlier, the legitimacy of legislative purpose can be acknowledged in that it is necessary to legally protect witnesses, etc. who are indispensable for free evidence activities, as seen earlier, beyond the protection of the victim of the crime.

Therefore, the defendants' criminal acts consisting of violence and intimidation against the victim who was present in the criminal law and was waiting for the order of testimony in order to give testimony as an employee of the damage company of the crime interfering with advertising suspension pressure in order to give testimony is an act of high possibility of criticism, which cannot be justified in any case.

Moreover, even if the facts of the crime in the judgment are fully recognized, the Defendants are consistent with the legal theory that is difficult to understand, and this court does not seem to have any attitude against salivism, and there is no agreement with the victims. Meanwhile, the victims are present in the court of this case as a witness, and stated that the victims are suffering from extreme stress and salvaging from other members of the anonymous terms as well as the Defendants.

Considering the above points, the Defendants may not be sentenced to severe punishment corresponding to their responsibilities.

However, this case does not seem to have been planned in advance, and the degree of assault is minor and thus the victim was not in place, and Defendant 1 did not have any other criminal record than twice before and after the fine, and Defendant 2 did not have any other criminal record, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the Defendants, and taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship of the Defendants, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence is determined as ordered.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge)