The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is a police officer working at C police station.

At around 15:00 on September 17, 2016, the Defendant requested that the intermediary company be responsible for and return of KRW 150,000,000,000 paid as the down payment, which is an employee of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), a broker of real estate exchange contract (hereinafter “E”), which is an employee of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), a broker of real estate exchange contract, signed by himself/herself as his/her agent at the coffee shop located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “E”), and that the Defendant would use the SNA office even if the victims mobilized the organization if it does not bring about KRW 150,00.

“The victims were threatened respectively.”

2. Determination

A. In relation to a crime of intimidation, it generally refers to notifying a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fear. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites that the perpetrator informss such harm to the extent that it is likely to cause fear. However, if the perpetrator's speech or behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary decentralization, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intention of harm in light of surrounding circumstances, it shall not be recognized as a intimidation or a threat. However, whether there was a threat or intent of the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the situation leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do546 Decided August 25, 2006).

In addition, it is difficult to see.