beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and legal principles) of the Defendant’s act does not constitute intimidation by merely exercising the right to the extent permitted under the generally accepted social norms, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute intimidation, and the amount proposed to the victim company (10 million won) is a provisional and does not demand the amount as an actual intent to receive. Therefore, there is no intent to commit a conflict.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm and injury likely to be frighten to the extent that it limits the freedom of decision-making or interferes with the freedom of decision-making.
Here, the realization of harm and injury notified in this context does not necessarily require that it is illegal, and even if malicious notice is used as a means of realizing a right, if such notice is frighten the other party as a means of intimidation, and the means or method of exercising a right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social common sense, the crime of threat is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6406, Oct. 11, 2007). (b) Taking into account the following circumstances, such as the contents and expressions of the defendant's intimidation acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the amount requested by the defendant, the amount of the defendant's complaint raised by the defendant, the contents of the disadvantage suffered by the victim company, etc., the defendant's act constitutes intimidation, and even if the defendant's act is deemed to have been sufficiently recognized, it does not constitute a justifiable act, even if the defendant's act is a part of the exercise of a right.
Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.
1) On December 14, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sent Kakao Stockholm messages and calls to E, a site warden of the victim company, on December 14, 2016.