The standard for determining whether the act of assault, intimidation, etc., committed under the Criminal Act for the purpose of retaliation, etc. was "the purpose of retaliation, etc." under Article 5-9 (2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

Article 5-9(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010) provides that “The purpose of retaliation against the provision of a criminal investigation report, such as a complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials in connection with the investigation or trial of a criminal case by a person or another person” or “for the purpose of prohibiting the provision of a criminal investigation report, such as a complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials, or for cancelling a complaint or accusation, or for making a person make a false statement, testimony or submission of materials,” under the Criminal Act, the crime of assault or intimidation, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a more than one year, which is heavier than the statutory penalty under the Criminal Act. Whether such purpose was committed by a person shall be determined reasonably in light of social norms by taking into account various circumstances, including the offender’s age, occupation, etc., motive and method of the crime, contents and mode of the act, personal relationship with the victim and before and after

Article 5-9(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010); Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Law Firm Spring, Attorneys Yang Jong-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2009No1944 decided Oct. 22, 2009

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 5-9(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010; hereinafter “Special Specific Crimes Act”) provides that “The purpose of retaliation against the investigation group, such as filing of a complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials” or “for the purpose of prohibiting the provision of a criminal investigation group, such as a complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials, or for false statement, testimony or submission of materials” under the Criminal Act shall be limited to imprisonment with prison labor for a more than one year, which is greater than the statutory penalty under the Criminal Act in the event of the crime of assault or intimidation, etc.” In this context, whether the person committed such a purpose should be determined reasonably in light of various circumstances, including the age, occupation, etc. of the actor, motive and method of the crime, content and method of the act, content of the act, personal relationship with the victim, personal relationship with the victim, and other circumstances before and after the crime.

B. According to the reasoning of the lower court and the first instance court’s reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the assault and intimidation alleged in the facts charged of the instant case occurred from around 14:00 to 15:30, in Seoul Central District Court official, from the 18 November 18, 2008 to the 311st day of the court room. At the time, the said court, “○○○ National Camp” members were aware of the victim’s face during the criminal case’s oral proceeding, such as Nonindicted Company 1, who was charged with interfering with the advertiser’s duties by means of collective resistance telephone, Internet homepage connection, automatic connection, and false Internet reservation on goods, etc., and the victim was also aware of the victim’s face during the criminal case’s oral proceeding, and the victim was also aware of the victim’s desire to have been interfered with the victim’s business during the instant criminal case’s oral proceeding.

Based on the above facts, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Defendants guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds that the victims were the purpose of retaliation against the statements made by the investigative agency and the testimony that they want to make soon in the court. Such judgment of the court below is justifiable and acceptable as it is in accordance with the above legal principles, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the purpose of retaliation under Article 5-9 (2)

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 4

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendants’ act constitutes a crime of assault and intimidation and constitutes a crime of intimidation, and that the Defendants had an intent to jointly process, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)