logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.10.29 2014도13615
공갈
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Intimidation as a means of the crime of extortion refers to the threat of harm and injury likely to be frighten to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or interferes with the freedom of decision-making, and the realization of the harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it is illegal.

Even if a threat of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing a right, if it is a means of intimidation and makes the other party drink by means of intimidation, and if the means of realizing a right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms, a crime of intimidation is established.

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of receiving money exceeding the ordinary amount of damages from the victim, on behalf of his/her bereaved family members, constitutes a crime of violation of social norms, since it was difficult to readily conclude that there was the bereaved family’s right to claim damages due to the Defendant’s cause of death or not knowing the cause of death of F. In so doing, the lower court notified the victim, who is the Seoul Metropolitan Area Burial Manager of H, of the fact that he/she died of the F that he/she drinking Ha in He/she was distributed through press reports, etc., of the fact that “the cause of death,” and received money in excess of the ordinary amount of damages from the victim, as agreed money, as the means of realizing rights, even if the Defendant was to exercise the right to claim damages on behalf of his/her bereaved family, and even if the realization of the harm and injury itself is not unlawful, the Defendant’s act of receiving excessive amount of damages by taking advantage of such weak points against the victim, thereby going beyond the permissible scope of rights realization.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow