[1] The meaning of "Intimidation" in the crime of intimidation and the method of determining whether the act of intimidation or intent of intimidation exists

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to see that the victim's speech was an expression that the victim had an awareness that the victim's expression was merely an emotional desire or a temporary decentralization and that it was a threat of harm

[1] Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 86Do1140 delivered on July 2, 1986 (Gong1986, 1158) Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 delivered on May 10, 1991 (Gong1991, 1675) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 Delivered on March 25, 2005

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2005No1696 Decided December 23, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may cause a person to feel a fear, and thus, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that the perpetrator knows and cites that the perpetrator informss such a degree of harm. However, if the perpetrator’s speech or behavior is merely merely an expression of a simple emotional desire or temporary decentralization and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it shall not be recognized as a threat or intent, or whether there was an intent of intimidation or temporary decentralization should be determined by comprehensively considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the background leading up to such act and relation with the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1140, Jul. 22, 1986; 210Do21025, May 10, 2005; 2005Do329, Mar. 3, 205).

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below that it is hard to see that the victim with a sexual intercourse with his own male living together at the date and time as stated in the facts charged, and at the place as stated in the judgment of the court below that the victim "I can easily kill the person, spawn, spawn. We can see that it is hard to see that the victim had a sexual intercourse with his own male living together with the awareness that it is merely a mere expression of emotional humiliation or temporary labor, and it is nothing more than a mere expression of harm and injury with an emotional desire or temporary labor, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of intimidation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)