beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
A fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Regarding the mistake of facts and the misapprehension of the legal principle, the defendant did not intend to withdraw the above money through intimidation in the process of demanding a return of KRW 80,000,000 paid in return for the similarity act to E.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. Intimidation as a means of conflict with the legal doctrine refers to notifying a threat of harm that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of executing the will. The threat of harm is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the method of specification and makes the other party aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by the language or the dynamic. Even if the method of realizing the right is used as a means of realizing the right, if the method of realizing the right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the commission of a crime of extortion is commenced. Whether certain act exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and selected means of the pursuit.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do2422 delivered on March 10, 1995). B.
Judgment
1) First of all, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant entered a user facility operated by E at the time and time indicated in the facts charged, received services corresponding to the act of similarity from E, and eventually, the defendant and F filed a report to the police with the wind, while the trial expenses have occurred during the process, and the defendant and F filed a report to the police. 2) The defendant's act of similarity from the investigative agency to the trial court is true.