The judgment below

The part concerning intimidation and defamation of July 23, 2012 is reversed.

Defendant 1. A fine

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. With regard to intimidation, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged even though the defendant could be deemed to have notified the victim of harm that may cause fear beyond a simple expression of appraisal, in light of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor regarding defamation on July 23, 2012, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the Defendant was found to have injured the victim by pointing out false facts that the victim took money from H and I, thereby impairing the reputation of the victim, is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. “Intimidation”, which is required to establish a crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act, generally refers to the threat of harm sufficient to cause fear to a person who has become the other party to the intimidation. Whether such threat constitutes a threat of harm or injury ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances before and after the act, including the offender’s tendency, the surrounding circumstances at the time of the notification, the relationship and status between the offender and the other party, and the degree of friendship.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the Defendant, a non-permanent director of the agricultural cooperative, carried out field visits to the Republic of Korea with 15 executives, such as victims E, the same non-permanent director from March 22, 2012 to March 26, 2012. The above conduct was sexually purchased, and the Defendant joined the Republic of Korea with the victim, and the victim conspireds with the victim, 8 marks, 3 marks, and 3 marks, and the victim, including the above victim, was dissatisfied with the victim.