Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On April 2, 2019, around 18:23, 2019, the Defendant sent the victim D (here, 60 years of age) with the word “Is the dynamic image peting down, which is cutting down to the bridge in the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seoul, and the second floor,” which read “Is the victim’s bridges, which are cutting down to the bridge, will be sent together to one another,” and carried out as it would impair the honor of the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing intimidation text messages;

1. Relevant Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Although the gist of the assertion was the defendant made a statement as stated in the facts charged, it was to defend the victim against the continued intimidation, and there was no intention of intimidation.

2. Determination

A. In a crime of intimidation in the relevant legal doctrine, the term “intimidating” means, in general, notifying a person of harm to the extent that it may cause fears. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element of a crime does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm notified by the actor with the awareness and citing that the actor informss of such harm to such an extent. However, if the actor’s speech or behavior is merely an expression of a mere emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the actor’s act of intimidation or temporary dispersion is an expression of harm.

However, the issue of whether there was the intent of intimidation or intimidation in the above meaning is not only the appearance of the act, but also the surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act and the relationship with the victim.