2015Do14489 Intimidation

A

Defendant

Law Firm B

Attorney C

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No557 Decided September 3, 2015

February 18, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant filed a provisional attachment or embezzlement complaint with the victim AD and F.

the Board of Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the Inspection Board of the National Health Insurance Corporation, and the Audit Office of the National Health Insurance Corporation.

institution to file a petition and a public official of a quasi-judicial institution to the National Ombudsman shall use legal knowledge.

the purport that an action would be brought to the extent that such action would result in damage to such citizens and E schools;

(hereinafter referred to as "certificate of content of this case") shall be prepared and sent to the office of the victims.

The victims threatened.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court’s evidence of this case as stated in the facts charged

The instant facts charged were found guilty on the ground that it constitutes easy intimidation.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. In the crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Code, ‘Intimidation' means a fear that the other party to the crime has made the person to be the other party.

notice of harm sufficient to cause such harm, which constitutes such notice of harm.

the offender and the other party, the surrounding circumstances at the time of the notification, and the relationship between the offender and the other party;

It should be determined by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances before and after the act, such as the status and degree of friendship (Supreme Court).

See Supreme Court Decision 2011Do10451 Decided August 17, 2012, etc.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

1) The victims who were the principals of alternative schools E schools and the victims who were parents of the above schools

There was a dispute over the return of the support payment, the settlement of school expenses, etc.

The parties have requested a provisional attachment against the defendant's deposit claims in relation to the dispute at issue.

24. Upon receipt of the ruling of provisional seizure, the Defendant filed a complaint for embezzlement on February 1, 2013.

2) The Defendant sent the victims a certificate of content of the instant case, and the content of the certificate is proved.

that the victims agree not to require the return of the support payments, and that the false content

withdrawal of a complaint or provisional seizure filed, explanation of accurate facts, and demand that the complaint be issued or the provisional seizure be issued;

In the meantime, "AD (after the opening of the name)" is a public official, "F (H after the opening of the name)" is a public institution.

(National Health Insurance Corporation) The Defendant, as well as the members of seminars and E-schools, is false;

The Supreme Prosecutors' Office (Intermediate omitted) shall inspect teachers and their parents as much as they are unable to properly conduct the inspection.

A petition shall be filed to the division, the National Health Insurance Corporation's audit office, and the public service of quasi-judicial agencies to the National Ombudsman.

It is false that a person has used legal knowledge, so that he/she is not a citizen of high level and E school as an educational community.

It was clearly notified that it would bring an action against the injury.

3) Next, on May 9, 2013, as notified in the instant content certification.

A petition against the victim G was submitted to the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, etc., and the above victim is the petition.

It appears that there was no separate investigation and there was any other special disadvantage.

subsection (b).

4) Meanwhile, the Defendant was not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution regarding the above accusation filed by the victims.

The defendant applied for the order to file a lawsuit against the above provisional seizure order, but the victims

The execution was rescinded because of the failure to file a suit.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above studies as acknowledged by the lower court.

The sending text messages to the victims by which teachers, etc. request the victims to explain and the office of the victims.

Taking into account the circumstances in which the head was visited, the dispatch of the content of the instant case is from the victims.

the complaint of embezzlement and the criminal defendant who has been subject to a provisional seizure are based on false information

for this reason, prior to filing a petition with the victims’ employees, the victims’ withdrawal of the petition shall be required.

on the ground that it is merely a prior notification that it will file a petition, and it is against social rules.

In fact, the defendant cannot be seen as having filed a petition, and therefore, the content certification of this case has been proved.

Due to the contents of the facts charged, victims flickly and uneasure.

(1) The defendant notified that he will file a petition prior to the actual filing of the petition.

Only by itself a threat of harm sufficient to cause fear required for the establishment of a crime of intimidation.

It is difficult to see that it falls under Korea.

Nevertheless, the lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined otherwise by the lower court as constituting intimidation.

Since the facts charged in this case were found guilty, the judgment of the court below is a crime of intimidation.

In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal.

The argument has a justifiable reason.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.

In other words, it is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Jae-young

Justices Lee In-bok, Counsel for the appeal

Justices Go Young-young

Justices Lee Dong-won