The case holding that the phrase "bather" does not constitute intimidation because the phrase "bather" does not merely go through a simple bath;

During a dispute with the victim, the phrase “phere” does not constitute intimidation because it cannot be deemed that it cannot be viewed that it is a simple emotional humiliation and that it would cause harm to the victim in light of the surrounding circumstances at the time.

Article 283 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 8Na383 delivered on December 24, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of the record, the court below rejected the statement of the victim of the lawsuit and the Quok-hee on the primary facts charged that the defendant was assaulting the victim by taking his clothes as his hand, and it is legitimate to examine the process of determining that there was no evidence to prove the crime since there was no evidence to acknowledge the facts of the crime, and the content of the evidence preparation cannot be viewed as violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. The phrase “the Defendant” means that it is sufficient to view that the Defendant was a mere emotional desire in light of the motive of the victim’s verbal abuse and the situation of caution at that time, etc., as recognized by the lower court, and cannot be deemed as an act of notifying the victim of the harm. The lower court is justifiable to deem that the Defendant’s verbal abuse does not constitute intimidation under the Criminal Act, and cannot be deemed as a misunderstanding of the legal doctrine of intimidation.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee B-soo (Presiding Justice)