(a)the content of the intent in the crime of intimidation and the criteria for determining its existence;

(b) The case holding that in case where the defendant's act was of a strong rubber play in the body of the victim, who was in the body of the victim, and was in action to fluorize it, the victim et al. who tried to do so, and the victim et al. who al. al. al., "I would kill the whole family of the victim," and reported by the victim at approximately one hour after the victim was completely influence and at the end, the defendant's act was a notice of harm that may cause fear to the extent that the victim may cause fear, and that there was an intentional threat to the defendant

A. In the crime of intimidation, the term "Intimidation" means a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to a person. As such, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require an actor's awareness or desire to actually realize the harm that he/she has notified to such an extent that he/she may cause such fear. However, if the perpetrator's speech or behavior is merely an expression of an emotional desire or temporary decentralization and it is objectively evident that he/she has no intention to harm in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the perpetrator's act of intimidation or temporary decentralization has no intention to harm. However, whether there was a intent of intimidation or temporary decentralization should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act, relationship with the victim, etc.

B. In a case where the Defendant saw that he had a strong rubber play on the body of the victim, who was the victim, while playing his action to turn on a rubber fire, the victim et al. who tried to do so, and told the victim et al. to do so, “I would die in the whole family,” and when the victim took an action for about one hour and did not hear even though he did not hear it, the Defendant’s act notified the victim et al. of the harm sufficient to raise fear to the extent that the victim et al., and furthermore, even if the Defendant did not have any intention or fire to actually harm the body of the victim et al., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware and quoted of the harm that the victim would have been informed of the harm and injury, and even if the victim did not have any intention or fire to do so, the Defendant’s act does not constitute an objective case where it is objectively evident that the victim’s act was merely an emotional speech or behavior or there is no intention to harm it.

Articles 13 and 283 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Young-young

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 90No1858 delivered on June 7, 1990

The non-guilty portion of the judgment below shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the court below found the defendant guilty of the harm and injury caused the defendant's act in light of the fact that the defendant's act was committed on December 25, 1989, when considering the following facts: (a) around 18:00, at the house of the non-indicted 1, who is the defendant living together with the defendant in order to establish the crime of intimidation on the part of the non-indicted 1, who was not aware of the harm and injury caused the defendant's awareness of the harm and injury in light of the fact that the defendant's act was committed on the part of the non-indicted 1, who was committed against the punishment of Violence, etc. Act; (b) since the defendant's act was committed on the part of the non-indicted 1, who was committed against the defendant's act of intimidation on the part of the non-indicted 1, who was not aware of the victim's intent or intimidation, it means the other person's fear of harm.

2. In the crime of intimidation, the term "Intimidation" means a threat of harm that may generally cause fear to an ordinary person. As such, the subjective constituent elements of the crime do not require an actor's awareness of and citing that the perpetrator's expression of harm to such an extent is aware of and the intent or desire to actually realize the harm that has been notified. However, if the perpetrator's expression 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 that the perpetrator's expression of the act of intimidation or temporary dispersion has no intention to harm. However, the issue of whether there was the above intent of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by considering not only the appearance of the act but also the surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act and the relation between the victim and the victim.

According to the records, when the defendant was unable to request money from the above victim from time to time after his/her loss of his/her parents, he/she did not drink and failed to do so, and when he/she was found to have been convicted of the crime of assault and death. When the defendant and his/her cohabiting non-indicted 2 went away from the house of the above victim non-indicted 1 on December 11, 1989, he/she did not have his/her husband and returned to the above women after he/she was stolen cash amounting to 200,000 won from the above victim's husband, but he/she did not know that the above victim's previous products purchased under the non-indicted 1's guarantee would result in the above victim's bodily harm, and he/she did not know that he/she did not have any harm to the victim's body, and he/she did not know that he/she would have any harm to the victim's body, and he/she did not know that he/she would have any harm to the victim's body."

In addition, according to the records, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had an intention to commit suicide in the above act, and in this case where the defendant committed an act as stated in its decision, such as that the defendant saw a rubber play with a high combustibility in the body of the oral repair shop located within the victim 1's house, and gets off the room and turn off the room, it shall be deemed that the defendant was aware that the victim et al. would have a fear, and thus there was an intention of intimidation. The harm caused by the above defendant's speech and behavior shall be deemed to have been notified to the victim et al.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the defendant's intention of intimidation cannot be recognized shall be deemed to have violated the rules of evidence or affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles of the crime of intimidation.

Therefore, the non-guilty portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)