beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, made verbal abuse against the victim on the date and time stated in the facts charged in the instant case, it is merely a mere expression of abusive language or temporary labor without participating in interest, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of intimidation under the Criminal Act.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In a crime of intimidation in a misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion, the expression of harm that may cause fear to a general public. As such, an intentional constituent element of a subjective constituent element does not require an actor’s awareness or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites that such a degree of harm may cause fear. However, if the perpetrator’s speech or behavior is merely a mere emotional expression or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that the perpetrator has no intent to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged as a intimidation or temporary dispersion, but whether there was an intent of intimidation or intimidation in the above sense should be determined by comprehensively considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act and the relationship with the victim.
(See Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 Decided May 10, 1991, etc.). Specifically, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the Defendant confirmed the Defendant’s absence of a voice message at around 09:19, the Defendant confirmed that: (a) the Defendant sent the victim a voice message to the effect that the victim was unable to receive the said call; (b) the Defendant sent the voice message to the effect that the victim would want to have a conversation with the victim at around 08:55 on the same day; and (c) the Defendant confirmed the Defendant’s absence of a voice message at around 09:19 on the same day.