The meaning of "aggravated threat of force" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a group of many people who have not achieved an organization, which refers to a majority of people who show collective power to the extent that it causes fear of causing them to feel pressure, and a majority of people's "comforcing power" refers to a group of people who are in the form of multiple people, and the group of people refers to a group of people who are sufficient to suppress people's intentions by many persons who are gathered in the form of multiple persons, and the number of persons who are in the form of a majority shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances at the time of the act. In this case, the other party's intent does not need to be practically controlled, but the degree of perception of the other party's ability to suppress the other party's intent should be the degree of perception.

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Supreme Court Decision 2004Do234 Delivered on March 26, 2004

Defendant 1 and seven others

et al., two others

Attorneys Kim Young-deok et al.

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004No291 delivered on December 16, 2004

All appeals are dismissed.

1. Judgment on the Defendants’ Appeal

Since the Defendants asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal and received a decision from the court of final appeal, the court of final appeal may not appeal for misapprehension of legal principles, etc. as the grounds for appeal. In addition, it is justified in light of the records that the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding and imposed the Defendants on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. There is no error

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal

Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a group of many people who have not achieved an organization, which refers to a majority of people who show collective power to the extent that it causes fear of causing them to feel pressure, and a majority of people's "comforcing power" refers to a group of people who are in the form of multiple people, and the group of people refers to a group of people who are sufficient to suppress people's intentions by many persons who are gathered in the form of multiple persons, and the number of persons who are in the form of a majority shall be determined by taking into account various circumstances at the time of the act. In this case, the other party's intent does not need to be practically controlled, but the degree of perception of the other party's ability to suppress the other party's intent should be the degree of perception.

The court below's decision that the defendants' act does not constitute a case where the defendant's act did not constitute a case where he exercised "a heavy power" under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is just in light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to multiple power as the grounds for appeal. The Supreme Court decision that is contrary to the grounds for appeal is different from the case, and

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)