The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was around 00:20 on May 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) was boarding a D business taxi operated by the victim C at the front of the Kugdong Police Station in Dobong-gu, Suwon-si; and (b) was able to take the victim’s desire to “the victim would go back if she would go back because there are many horses so that she would she can sing down if you would she would sing down” on the ground that she would ask the Defendant at the vicinity of the destination.

그 후 피고인은 피해자가 위 택시를 운전하여 E 아파트 앞에 정차를 하자 요금도 주지 않고 “야 씹할 놈아 억울해! 억울하면 공무원 하지 씹할 놈아! 좆 빨랐다고 택시 해 개새끼야! 너 우리 아버지가 누구인지 아냐! 죽여 버리겠다. 아들 새끼까지 다 데려오라. 죽이겠다.“라고 말하는 등 피해자를 협박하였다.

2. Intimidation in the crime of intimidation means a threat of harm and danger to the extent that it may cause an ordinary person to feel a threat. As such, an intentional element of a subjective element does not require an actor to actually realize the harm and danger that the actor knows and cites that it would cause such harm and injury. However, if the actor’s speech and behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary dispersion and it is objectively evident that there is no intention of intimidation in light of the surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged that the actor’s act of intimidation or temporary dispersion is a mere expression of the harm and danger.

The issue of whether there was the intent of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by considering not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act and the relationship with the victim as a whole.

(See Supreme Court Decision 86Do1140 Decided July 22, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102 Decided May 10, 1991, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 Decided March 25, 2005, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, we examine the instant case.