logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1961. 9. 21. 선고 4294형상385 판결
[공갈][집9형,108]
Main Issues

(a) Crimes committed by intimidation in the exercise of legitimate rights;

(b) Responsibility for an offense of extortion where some of the details of harm and injury notified are false;

Summary of Judgment

Even if a person has a legitimate right, if he/she is given property by taking advantage of his/her exercise of the right and causing intimidation to the other party, the crime of intimidation is established.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 350 of the Criminal Act

Appellant, Defendant

Defendant 1 and two others

Judgment of the lower court

Support for the promotion of the first instance, the second instance Gwangju High, etc.

Reasons

Even if a legitimate right was committed, if the act is not deemed to be the exercise of the right by means of intimidation, such as the case where the non-indicted 1 was exposed to the exercise of the right by means of intimidation. Even if there were some false facts in the contents of harm and injury so notified, if it is sufficient for the counter-indicted 1 to observe the outside and deliver the property, and if the delivery of the property was caused by the outside distribution, the crime of attack may be established. In this case, as the past circumstances, the defendant 1 was under dispute between the non-indicted 1 and the government office, and the government office of the court below, which had the non-indicted 2, who was not a neighboring resident at the time of the installation of the factory site, to file a criminal complaint against the non-indicted 1, who had the non-indicted 2, who was not a neighboring resident at the time of the court below's execution of the right, and the defendant 1 and the defendant 31 et al., who were the defendant 1 and the defendant 31 et al., who were present at the police office.

Justices Cho Jin-jin (Presiding Justice)

arrow