[1] The criteria for determining whether a threat of harm and injury to infringe a third party’s legal interest constitutes a crime of intimidation against the victim himself/herself, and whether such third party’s “corporation” is included (affirmative)

[2] Whether “corporation” can be the object of a crime of intimidation (negative)

[3] In a case where the head of a claims collection agency sent to the head office of the company for the purpose of evading the civil and criminal liability for his/her embezzlement to the relevant agency, and at the same time made a statement to the same purpose as the above written statement, the case affirming the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the crime of intimidation to the officers of the above company

[1] Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm that may cause fear to an ordinary person. The content of the harm so notified, i.e., the content of the harm that is likely to be infringed, or the type of legal interest or the subject of enjoyment of the legal interest to be infringed. Therefore, even if a threat of harm that infringes on the legal interest of the victim himself/herself or his/her relatives or any other third party as well as his/her relatives is closely related to the victim himself/herself, if the content of the harm is sufficient to cause fear to the victim himself/herself, the crime of intimidation may be established. In such cases, "third party" includes not only natural person but also legal person. Whether a threat of harm to the victim's legal interest to the victim is likely to cause fear to the victim himself/herself shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the specific contents and method of the harm so notified, the relationship between the victim and his/her legal entity, the status and role of the victim within the legal entity, the circumstances leading up to the threat, the activities of the legal entity and economic circumstances at the time.

[2] The crime of intimidation is a crime whose protected legal interest is the freedom of decision-making, and consists of one of the personal legal interests in the system of the provisions of the Criminal Code, especially the crimes against human freedom. In light of the protected legal interests of the above crime of intimidation, the system of the provisions of the Criminal Code, the concept of the act of intimidation, etc., the crime of intimidation is defined only as a natural person, and the juristic person

[3] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which recognized the crime of intimidation against the above executive director in a case where the director of the debt collection support headquarters sent to the head office of the company for the purpose of gathering the company's internal corruption, etc. to the relevant agencies such as the Financial Supervisory Service, etc. in order to hold the company liable for a civil or criminal liability for his embezzlement from the company

[1] Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 Decided September 28, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1726) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8922 Decided December 11, 2008 (Gong2009Sang, 72)

Defendant

Defendant

Gyeong Law Firm, Attorney Lee Won-won

Incheon District Court Decision 2009No552 Decided December 29, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Intimidation in a crime of intimidation refers to a threat of harm to an extent that may cause fear to an ordinary person (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). The content of the harm notified, that is, there is no limitation on the victim’s or his/her relatives, or the subject of enjoying legal interests, etc. that would infringe on the legal interests. Therefore, even if a threat of harm that infringes on the legal interests of the victim himself/herself or his/her relatives or any other third party, if the content of the harm is closely related to the victim himself/herself and the third party is likely to cause fear to the victim himself/herself, the crime of intimidation may be established. In such a case, “third party” includes not only natural but also legal entities. Whether the threat of harm to the victim’s legal interests to the victim is likely to cause fear to the victim himself/herself should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the specific contents and method of the harm notified, relationship between the victim and legal entity, the status of the victim, role in the victim, and economic circumstances of the corporation at the time.

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court below in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below sent a document to the head office of the company to the effect that the defendant, who worked as the head office of the non-indicted corporation's head office, was accused of the crime of intimidation against the victim, who was the head office of the above representative director at the time of requesting that the victim, who was the head office of the management support headquarters, would not be an issue of embezzlement by posting a telephone, and made a statement to the same effect as the above contents in light of the relation between the victim and the company, the situation of the company at the time, the circumstance and motive of the defendant's above act, the details of the defendant's notification to the victim, and the method of expression, etc.

On the other hand, the court below ruled that a corporation cannot be the object of the crime of intimidation in its reasoning and points out this part of the grounds of appeal, thereby clarifying the legal principles as to it.

In other words, the crime of intimidation is a crime whose protected legal interest is the freedom of human decision-making, and consists of one of the crimes against the individual’s freedom. In light of the legal interest of the crime of intimidation as above, the legal interest of the crime of intimidation, the system under the Criminal Act, and the concept of intimidation as above, etc., the crime of intimidation is only intended for natural persons, and the juristic person is not an object of the crime of intimidation. However, if it is strictly interpreted as “whether the act of intimidation can be recognized as a crime of intimidation,” the crime of intimidation is a matter of logical difference between “whether the act of intimidation” and “whether the act of intimidation can be recognized as a crime of intimidation.” In particular, in this case, as long as the prosecutor did not regard the victim as a juristic person, but the natural person who received a notice of direct harm from the defendant as a victim is prosecuted, it is sufficient to treat the contents of harm to the victim as seen above, how the relation between the victim and the juristic person actually being the object

As alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the meaning, object, etc. of intimidation in violation of the rules of experience or rules of evidence, or by analogical interpretation beyond the possible meaning of the text and text of the provision of the law,

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

2. As to grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4

In the crime of intimidation, an intentional act is a perception of and citing the fact that an actor informss of harm to the extent that it may cause an ordinary person to feel a fear. Whether there was an intent of intimidation in the above meaning should be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only the appearance of the act, but also the circumstances such as the background leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 1991, etc.). Meanwhile, even if the notice of harm was made, if it is permissible to recognize it in light of social customs and ethical sense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do70, Mar. 10, 1998).

As seen above, comprehensively taking account of the background and motive behind and motive behind the Defendant’s threat of harm to the victim, the specific contents of the harm and expression method of the Defendant’s notice, etc., sufficient recognition of the Defendant’s intentional threat to the victim. Although the Defendant was acquitted on the ground that the Defendant was not in a custodian’s position in the lower court on the part prosecuted for embezzlement and the judgment became final and conclusive on this part of the judgment, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s notice of harm and injury to the Defendant’s accusation against the victim of internal corruption, etc., which is irrelevant to the victim, is to the extent permissible in light of social norms, such as custom and ethical concept.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the intention or awareness of illegality in the crime of intimidation.

The ground of appeal on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)