200 Highest 5321 Attempts

1. A;

2. B

Heroop (prosecutions), Kim Jong-ro, literary eroop, grain (trials)

Attorney C, D, and E (for Defendant A)

Attorney F (for the defendant A)

Law Firm G (Defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Law Firm I (for Defendant B)

Attorney J, K-K

Law Firm L (Defendant B)

Attorney M, N, andO

July 16, 2021

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. The facts charged in this case

A. Presumed facts

(1) The Defendants’ status

Defendant A entered P Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "P") around November 2014, and mainly entered public prosecutor's office, including Q2, as a reporter of the Social Support Team of the news Report Headquarters, and was dismissed on June 25, 2020, when taking charge of coverage related to prosecutor's office and court, and around 2017, Defendant A was working as a reporter of Q2's prosecutor's office while serving as a new prosecutor of the same public prosecutor's office.

Defendant B, after entering P around September 2016, entered the 2019, middle of February 2019, was mainly a reporter of the news headquarters legal team of U prosecutor’s office, including U.S. prosecutor’s office, and was in charge of coverage related to prosecutor’s office and court. From June 30, 2020, Defendant B was working at the digital news team.

(2) The victim V-in-fact situation

The victim V (hereinafter referred to as "victim for convenience") is the representative director of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government company X (hereinafter referred to as "X"). On June 4, 2019, the Seoul Southern District Court sentenced 12 years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court on August 29, 2019 and its judgment became final and conclusive on August 29, 2019. On February 6, 2020, the same court was sentenced to imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and is currently in the Seoul Southern Southern District Court.

On August 8, 2019, the Z District Public Prosecutor's Securities Joint Investigation Group (hereinafter referred to as "Y") issued bonds with warrants equivalent to 35 billion won around 2014, with unlawful means, and issued bonds with warrants at least 35 billion won around April 7, 2019. On February 5, 2020, the Financial Supervisory Service and the Financial Services Commission began the investigation into the relevant case as there is doubt that the stocks were sold by using undisclosed important information, and (1) as the above Securities Joint Investigation Group was abolished on February 5, 2020, the above case was cultivated as one copy of the Financial Investigation of the same Public Prosecutor's Office, and the investigation into the major part of the Y case was completed on June 8, 2020, and part of the complaint case is currently under investigation.

On the other hand, the victim, who was the representative director, invested 45 billion won in Y from around 2013 to around 31, 2014, was the largest shareholder who owned 14% of Y’s shares. Around the end of September 2015, the victim obtained enormous profits from the market price by selling all shares.2) The victim, when the prosecutor conducts an investigation on the issuance of Y-related bonds with warrants, etc., naturally, he/she is expected to be subject to investigation, and he/she and his/her family could be subject to investigation. In fact, the victim received a request for summons from the Y-related District Prosecutors’ Office around March 25, 2020 to be summoned by the Y-related District Prosecutors’ Office from around January 3, 2020 to March 31, 2014, the director A of X-A was subject to investigation from the director of the headquarters of the District Prosecutors’ Office on March 20, 2016, respectively.

(b) Criminal facts;

(1) The motive of crime and the Defendants’ specific conspiracy

On January 20, 2020, Defendant A planned to gather victims and their families and to make a single report by requiring them to state corruption information on the specific personnel affairs of a passport A, such as AC, and started personal coverage of Y case on or around January 26, 2020, including obtaining a real estate register in the name of the victim's wife AD, and ascertaining the status of the victim's family's property. The Defendants visited the victim's family members, etc. from around that time to February 6, 2020 and attempted to look at the victim's wife and other family members, etc.

On February 6, 2020, Defendant A, including Defendant B, arranged the results of coverage up to the time of the Kakao Stockholm Group Sykao Stockholm Group TV room jointly owned by the reporters of the P legal team, and then “AH and V representatives” was the host of the Y price manipulation, and “AH” was the largest shareholders of the past Y. The 5 billion investment in Y in 2013, and the end of 2015. The V representatives sold the entire equity shares in Y in 2015. The V representatives are closely related to the passport personnel, such as AC. The target is 12 years of imprisonment, namely, “the sacrifice of the political authority,” and “the V representatives are 12 years of imprisonment,” and they also shared the goal and methods of coverage by posting a letter, namely, “the receipt of money and books distributed to political persons, such as AC,” in the form of “the sacrifice of the political authority.

On February 12, 2020, the Defendants met with the official report officer of the U.S. Prosecutor’s Office, or sought advice on the direction of gathering the Y case, including the following purport: (a) Defendant A is coverage with respect to Y; (b) Defendant A is currently seeking and contact with the location of V or A; (c) in the future, Defendant A seeks advice to gather news with any points; (d) Defendant B is the main objective of the AC investigation; and (e) Defendant B also seeks advice on the direction of gathering the Y case.

On the other hand, on February 13, 2020, the Defendants visited K prosecutors of the AJ high prosecutors' office located in AI at the time of the commencement of the Y investigation to the effect that, in relation to the case, Defendant A is aware of this fact on the Ythm. The purpose of coverage is "AC," and "AC should not receive 30 million won when it comes to the same kind of lectures," and at the same time, Defendant A is called "AC by visiting the AJ high prosecutors' office, which is located in AI," and "I" to the purport that "I will know to the effect that I will not receive 30 million won when it comes to the first time." In addition, Defendant B's family members will be reported to the purport that "I will come to know to the effect that I will come to know to the effect that I will be "I will come to know to the effect that I will come to know to the effect that I will go to the effect that I will come to know to the effect that I will not know."

Defendant B, around February 14, 2020, tried to contact the official gazettes of the Z District Public Prosecutor’s Office with “V” and “V”, and the prosecutor in charge of the investigation into the Y investigation into the Republic of Korea on or around March 17, 202, and on March 17, 200, the compulsory investigation into the above official gazettes is closed at any time. The purpose of Defendant B is to find out the arrival of money to the core personnel of the passport, including AC, and to gather news coverage and direction, and to gather news about the internal investigation situation of the prosecution, including the number of investigation teams and the schedule of investigation.

From January 26, 2020 to February 2, 202, the Defendants sent letters directly to the victim located in the detention house four times in the process of coverage, and continuously emphasized that they are connected to the prosecution's high level by means of talking with AM, talking with the victim on behalf of the Defendant, or communicating with the victim by means of conversations, conversations, etc. on behalf of the Defendant, etc., the Defendants continued to communicate with the victim during the same period of time, i.e., the victim as well as his family members by being sentenced to heavy punishment and deprivation of the concealed property.

However, around March 6, 2020, Defendant A confirmed the letter of sending from the above AM to V. On the same day, Defendant A sent text messages to the effect that the agreed part (which is in progress with the prosecutor's office) is denied, and thus, Defendant A was faced with the situation where coverage plan would no longer be produced. From March 10, 2020, from around 11:23:05 to about 10:10 minutes, Defendant A sent SY call to the above AM for about 11:36:46 on March 10, 202, Defendant B sent Defendant B a text message to the effect that “I would no longer be able to proceed.” On the same day, Defendant B did not sell it to the same effect as Defendant B, “I would not sell it if I would use it.”

그리고 피고인 A는 2020. 3. 10.경 피해자에 대한 편지를 작성한 후 같은 날 피해자에게 발송하여 같은 달 11.경 그 편지가 피해자에게 도달되게 하였고, 그 편지는 「대표님 지인 분과 이야기 나눴던 부분 중 상당부분이 해결 됐습니다.」라는 내용 등이 기재되어 있었으며 피해자에 대한 취재 활동을 계속해 나가겠다는 취지였다.

On March 13, 2020, the Defendants shown a record of the statement that "I will connect IC with the investigative team so that IC would be able to get prior notice if IC's corruption is reported." In order to confirm that I would be deprived of the property concealed by being sentenced to imprisonment not only the victim himself/herself but also his/her family, and that I would be deprived of the property hidden by being sentenced to heavy punishment, and that it is connected with the prosecutor's senior floor, and that S will be called a record of the conversation divided by it."

피고인 A는 2020. 3. 19.경 AM으로부터 'V이 제보요구에 응하지 않고 검찰 조사에 당당히 임하겠다고 한다'는 내용의 문자메시지를 받는 등 AC 등의 비리정보를 진술하게 하려는 계획이 다시 한 번 무산될 상황에 처하게 되자, 2020. 3. 20. 14:10:20경부터 약 7분 13초간 S과 전화 통화를 하고, 그 직후 2020. 3. 20. 14:20경 AM에게 "전화 부탁드립니다. 저도 다 말씀드릴테니 그래도 아니다 싶으면 안 하시는거고요"라는 문자메시지를 보냈고, 곧이어 2020. 3. 20, 14:40경 서울 서초구 AR에서, 피고인 B에게 전화하여 "내가 S한테는 아예 얘기를 해놨어, '어떻게 돼가요' 묻는 거야. 그래서 자꾸 '검찰하고 다리 놔달라고 한다', '딜 칠라고.' 그랬더니 '그래 그러면 내가 놔줄게' 그러는 거야 갑자기. '내가 직접, 아니다. 나보다는 범정이 하는 게 낫겠다...' 막 이러는거야. 내가 녹음파일 들려주고 싶다고 하면, 다 들려, 내가 다 녹음했어. 생각해보니 이어폰으로 들려주면 될 거 같아."라고 말하는 등 S과 통화한 내용을 알려주고, 피고인 B와 함께 피해자로 하여금 AC 등의 비리정보를 진술하게 하기로 하였다.

In addition, around 15:51 on March 21, 2020, Defendant A made a proposal again with the purport that Defendant A would call the said AM to the said AM and call the said AM for a monetary recording file with the high-ranking floor of the prosecution.

피고인들은 2020. 3. 22.경 서울 중구 AT에 있는 P 사무실에서, 위 AM을 만나 AC 등의 비리정보를 진술하지 않으면 피해자 본인은 물론 가족까지 중형을 선고받고 숨겨둔 재산까지 박탈당할 것이라는 취지로 말하면서 피고인들이 검찰 고위층과 연결되어 있다는 점을 확인시켜주기 위해 "AO 최측근, S 머시기라고 있어요"라고 말하는 등 S과의 통화 녹음이라는 여러 힌트를 주면서 「[二](제보를 하면) 당연히 좋은 방향으로 가지, 기본적으로 보면 (검찰과) 한 배를 타는 건데, (검찰 쪽을) 연결해줄 수 있지, 제보해, 그 내용을 가지고 범정을 접촉해. [ㅡ]당신 어차피 계좌추적하면 다 털려요하니까. 뭘 원해요? 가족을 원해요? 그나마 가족? 자기도 14년을 받으니까...[二]그걸가지고 우리랑 대화하고 싶다면 확실하게 믿을만한 대화의 통로를 핵심적으로 연결해 줄 수 있는 거지」라고 말한 내용 등이 녹음된 파일을 들려주고, 그 파일을 녹취한 것이라고 하면서 녹취록을 보여주었다.

Defendant A perused the copy of the register in the name of the victim’s wife, and continued to contact the victim from January 26, 2020 to March 22, 202, from January 26, 2020 to March 22, 202, on 327 occasions, including the following: (a) sending letters to the victim from January 26, 2020 to March 26, 202; (b) communicating with the victim; (c) 15 times in call, Boston 3 times in call, and Kakakao Stockholm text messages.

As such, the Defendants are closely connected to the Y-related investigation that could affect the victim, and the Defendants are threatening to the effect that the victim would be subject to severe punishment through a strong investigation in connection with the Y investigation unless he/she stated Y-related information such as AC, etc., and conspired the victim, who is fluent, to make a statement about the victim’s corruption information of the passport personnel, such as AC.

(2) Specific coercions

On February 2, 2020 through March 3, 2020, the Defendants continuously emphasized that the victims are connected with the high-rises of the prosecution by sending letters to the victims who are confined in Seoul Southern Detention House, and directly talking with AM, an agent of the victims, etc., and tried the victims to state the victim’s false information of AC, etc. with the purport that the victims would be deprived of their own victims, as well as their family members, unless they do not state the false information of AC, etc.

(A) the dispatch of the first letter

On February 14, 2020, Defendant A prepared a letter of the following contents from a post office located in the AV High Prosecutor's Office in the AV High Prosecutor's Office located in AU, which is located in the Central District Court of Seoul, to the victim on February 14, 2020. On February 17, 2020, Defendant A sent the letter to the victim by a post office located in Seocho-gu Seoul High Prosecutor's Office in Seocho Central District Court of Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and the said letter reached the victim on the 17th day of the same month.

The above letter is coverage at the PP legal team. At present, the prosecution resumed the investigation. The prosecution has also followed AO's instructions. The Zter also complies with the AO. The investigation will be conducted as much as AO is directly affiliated. The investigation will inevitably return to the National Assembly. Ultimately, the representative of the National Assembly (victim) will be a personnel relationship. In addition, if the representative is aware of the thickness and will do so, it will be done in very rough time. If the further punishment becomes more possible, the 14 year and 6 months will be done. In addition, the representative refers to 75 years of release from the National Assembly, and the 80 years of the National Assembly's guidance was made. The purpose of the investigation is that the victim is connected with the prosecutor's office and the victim will be punished as a relevant investigation.

또한 위 편지에는 「이미 대표님은 유례없는 중형이 확정된 상황입니다. 정권도 바뀌고 실력 있는 전관 변호사를 썼는데 왜 그런 결과가 벌어졌을까요. 제가 알아본 바에 따르면 대표님에게 중형을 선고해 재기를 막아버리는...'꼬리 자르기' 시도가 있었습니다. AC 이사장은 "거절하지 못하고 덕담만하고 돌아온 게 전부"라고 꼬리를 잘랐습니다. 곧 "V이 누구냐? 제대로 알지도 못 한다"고 대응할 것입니다. AC 이사장 뿐이겠습니까. 모두 대표님께 화살을 돌리고 인연을 부정할 것입니다. 그럼 그 만큼 대표님의 형량은 올라가겠죠........솔직히 말씀드리면 저는 대표님과 AC 이사장 등 정관계 인사와의 관계가 궁금합니다. 강연 등의 대가로 얼마나 돈을 건네셨는지도 궁금하고, 이분들이 실제 Y 주식을 많이 샀었는지도 궁금합니다」라는 내용이 포함되어 있어 Y의 대주주였던 피해자가 Y 관련 수사로 처벌받을 수 있고, 피해자가 AC 등의 주가조작 등 비리정보를 진술하지 않으면 추가 수사로 형량이 올라가는 등 더 중한 처벌을 받을 것이라는 취지가 강조되어 있었다.

(B) Dispatch of the second letter

On February 19, 2020, Defendant A prepared the second letter to the victim at the AV prosecutors' office in the AV prosecutors' office under the preceding paragraph, and sent it to the victim on the same day, and the letter reached the victim on the 20th day of the same month.

The above letter is in charge of the gathering of P legal team. The Z prosecutor fully resumess the investigation. While the Ministry of Justice reconvened with the recruitment of human resources for the Y investigation team, the two prosecutors will take up excessive investigation. The six prosecutors already put into charge of investigation. The AH will be subject to further investigation. During this process, the NN must make a statement in order to see himself. During this process, the NNN has the status of commencement of tracking once again even on real estate funds owned by the representative and the real estate funds owned by the representative. The two real estate owned has also been aware that there was an investigative personnel. The family property, dust, and so on, the two prosecutors will have been connected with the prosecutor's office's punishment. The purpose of this article is to emphasize that there is a high possibility that many sections, including AH, will be subject to further investigation, and that the victim will be subject to further investigation.

또한 위 편지에는 「왜 대표님이 과도한 책임을 모두 떠안아야 될까요. 그리고 왜 아무도 대표님을 보호해주지 않는 걸까요. 대표님께 덕 본 사람들이 상당히 많은 것으로 아는데 말입니다. 솔직히 말씀드리면 저는 AC 이사장 등 정관계 핵심인사 관련 의혹이 궁금합니다. 강연 등의 대가로 얼마를 받으셨는지도 궁금하고요. 이 분들이 실제 Y 주식을 샀었는지도 궁금합니다. 어차피 압수되어 넘어갈 주주명부도 궁금합니다. 물론 대표님이 정관계 인사들과 친분이 있으신 것은 잘 알고 있습니다. 하지만 모든 책임은 누구한테 씌워지겠습니까.」라는 내용이 포함되어 있어 Y의 대주주였던 피해자가 Y 관련 수사로 처벌받을 수 있고, 피해자가 AC 등의 주가조작 등 비리정보를 진술하지 않으면 더 중한 처벌을 받을 것이라는 취지가 강조되어 있었다.

(C) the dispatch of the third letter

Defendant A, around February 21, 2020, prepared the third letter to the victim in the AV high prosecutors' office within the AV high prosecutors' office, and sent it to the victim on the 21st of the same month, and the letter reached the victim on the 24th of the same month.

In this letter, the representative of AWC (AH-related victim’s visa) was fluoring that he/she divulged related suspicions and worked as a staff member of the BX chief administrative office. AWC is aware that he/she works as a secretary of the BH (AH) and becomes aware that there are many important parts of AH, such as budget expenditure and political relations personnel. AWC is also final and conclusive to undergo an investigation by the prosecution. This is also an extension of the investigation by the prosecution. AY and AZ4 is also a firm investigation by the prosecution. It was emphasized that it is connected with the prosecution and the victim is subject to a strong punishment through a strong investigation related to Y.

In addition, if the above letter contains a fact that the AWC is not good between the representative and the present, it is likely that the representative will make a statement favorable to the principal and harm the representative.................................. (i) Doring, I would like to hear the representative's speech first because the knife of the prosecutor's office is highly likely to lead to a knife with the core personnel in political relations, so I would like to hear the representative's speech because the representative's knife would have been knife," which includes the content that the representative could be punished as a Y-related investigation, and the victim would not make a statement about the price manipulation such as AC et al.

(d) The first metre and currency with AM;

Defendant A, around February 24, 2020, sent the following conversations to AM, an agent of the victim, and sent the following conversations to AP located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, on February 25, 2020. Thereafter, the above AM was notified to BB attorney-at-law of the victim through telegram text messages, etc., and the above BB sent these contents while meeting the victim at the Seoul Southern-gu, Seoul.

Defendant A, while making the above AM call, emphasized that he was coverage for a long time on the floor (the prosecution) and maintained a close relationship with him, and that the prosecution itself is connected with the prosecution and that the victim is subject to severe punishment for an investigation related to Y, by referring to internal investigation situations, such as the relationship with the prosecution, the progress of the investigation, and the investigation plan.

In addition, Defendant A divides the above AM and combines with the above AM, and "the prosecution's office now now is able to see the five loans made by the IM team, which will increase more than now. It is necessary to confirm the test with a high level of people, and AO also sees the Zine and two BC cases at the time of initial talks, which are called the Zine prosecutor's life cases, and Y itself.In addition, it is important to add more than several years.However, it is essential that the family division may be more improved than the suspension of the execution, and that the trust relationship is formed among the incumbent reporters, and that it is closely connected with the prosecutor's office, such as the name AORa or articles. It is necessary to see that there is a strong relationship between the victim and his family members, such as the victim's internal conversation, which is connected with the investigation.

In addition, Defendant A divided the conversation with the above AM, and “I am dynasty even if I am dynasty. I am dynasty where I am dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty dynasty.

(e) the dispatch of the fourth letter.

On February 26, 2020, Defendant A prepared the fourth letter to the victim in order to emphasize the contents of the statement to AM based on the dialogue between AM and B, such as the foregoing paragraph, and sent it to the victim around February 26, 202, and the letter reached the victim around February 27, 202.

I would like to be subject to multiple investigations, including the private placement which was registered as BD representative. This objective of this investigation would be likely to be punished for family branches according to the fact that "I will clearly examine the defective part in the investigation," and I would like to say that I would like to say that I would be able to directly contact with the senior executives and directors of the prosecutor's office. I would like to see that I would have been 15 days in the middle of 3 months. I would like to see that I would like to be able to fully delay the search and seizure of the case due to the fact that I would like to have a strong relationship between the prosecutor's office and the victim's office. I would like to see that I would like to be able to have a strong balance between the prosecutor's office and the prosecutor's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office's office' and Y's office's office's office'. I would like to have a strong relationship with the victim's office's office's office's punishment.

In addition, the above letter has a ‘Non Card'. The letter may be a card to the personnel of fixed relations, such as the President before AC, under the pretext of lecture fuel, and it may be a detailed statement in which personnel of fixed relations, etc. were involved at the time of purchase of Y shares. In addition, it may be possible to think that ‘I may change by the sidewalk...... there may be a book that may be known to him.... There may be a lot of books that he knows that ‘I do not change by the sidewalk..........).' However, all of them have laid the representative, and the result is that the representative is on the floor of the detention house in which the vehicle is in force today, and the result of which the card may be used. In addition, the fact that the card may be used is included in this investigation and the last day of this investigation, and the victim who was a major shareholder of Y may be punished as an investigation, and there is no further emphasis on additional investigation information such as AC et al.

(f) Transmission of five letters;

As described in paragraph (1) of the above paragraph (b) of the same paragraph, Defendant A was placed in the situation where the coverage plan would no longer be available, such as receiving text messages from the above AM, at the AV prosecutors' office in the AV prosecutors' office of March 6, 2020, Defendant A sent to Defendant B a phone call for about about 11:23:05 on March 10, 2020, and then Defendant B sent a message to Defendant B to Defendant B to have the victim state the information of AC, etc., and then sent it to the victim on March 10, 200, Defendant A sent it to the same day as the prosecution office of the Republic of Korea on March 10, 200, Defendant A sent it to the victim on May 10, 200.

그 편지는 「지인 분께서 답신을 보내주셨습니다만 다시 연락드립니다. 대표님지인 분과 이야기 나눴던 부분 중 상당부분이 해결 됐습니다. 글로 적기 어려우니 자세한 내용은 지인분과 만난 자리에서 이야기 드리겠습니다.」라는 내용으로 검찰과의 연결 가능성에 대한 확답을 줄 수 있다는 취지가 기재되어 있었다.

In addition, the letter includes the content of "Y's major shareholder" that is punished as a Y-related investigation, and the victim would be subject to more severe punishment if he/she did not make a statement about the price manipulation such as AC, etc.

(G) 20,000 South with AM

Defendant A received text messages that it would be difficult to proceed more from AM on or around March 6, 2020, as described in the above B-B-1, and that it would make it difficult for AM to proceed, Defendant A made the call with S on or around March 10, 2020, and sent the message that Defendant B would connect with the prosecution clearly.

around March 13, 2020, the Defendants directly talked with the above AM in Q Q, and the above AM was informed to the victim’s attorney-at-law through telephone calls or Kakakakakao Stockholm text messages, and the above BB visited the victim in the business Seoul Southern Detention House, and sent this content to the victim.

위 대화 내용은 "이제 어차피 이거 터는거 오래 안 걸려요. 그러면 주가조작이라는 거는 타고 올라가면 그만이니까 오래 안 걸려요.. '당시에 수사를 했다. 수사를 했는데 수사를 제대로 안 한 부분들을 이번에 확실히 짚고 넘어가자'는 게 검찰 최고위층의 생각이에요. 솔직히 사모님도 엮인 거 내가 보니까 많더만, 보니까 막 대표 무슨 가라로 넣어놓고 그렇게 했는데, 그렇게 하면 사모가 이거 되는거(구속되는거) 정도는 막을 수 있어요. 그러고 와이프만 문제에요? 아니면 뭐 친척들까지 문제에요? 솔직하게 말씀드리면, 뭐 검찰 높은 사람들하고 통화도 좀 했어요. 굉장히 높은 사람들하고 얘기를 하면서.."라는 등의 내용이었고, 피고인들은 검찰 고위층과 연결되어 있다는 점을 확인시켜주기 위해 S을 익명의 검찰 고위 간부라고 언급하며 그와 나눈 대화라고 하면서 「[二]아...뭐 봐야죠, 불러놓고 얘길 안 하면 져야 접으면 되는거요. 근데 징역 14년인데 더 잃게 되면 좀 그런 부분도 있잖아요. 근데 돈이야 어차피 추적하면 드러나니까 V이 지킬 수 있는게 많지 않고, 가족이나 와이프 처벌받고 하는 부분 정도는 그래도 긍정적으로 될 수 있는 것 같은데. [ㅡ]그래 얘기를 들어봐. 그리고 나한테 알려줘. 우리도 수사팀에 그런 입장을 전달해 줄 수는 있어」라고 통화한 내용 등이 기재된 녹취록을 보여주면서 검찰 고위층과 연결되어 있고 피해자와 가족이 Y과 관련한 강력한 수사를 통해 중한 처벌을 받을 것이라는 취지를 강조하였다.

In addition, the Defendants stressed that the victims would be subject to more severe punishment unless they make statements, such as the price manipulation of AC, etc., such as “I am hye. I am hye. I am hye. what needs to be prepared.”

(h) The third metre with AM

Defendant A received another text message from AM around March 19, 2020 that it would be difficult to proceed more than anything else, as described in the above B-1, and Defendant A sent a currency call with the Defendant B, and then sent it to AM.

피고인 A는 2020. 3. 21.경 AM에게 서울 중구 AS에서 휴대전화로 "이왕 이렇게 된 거 더 숨기는 거 없이, 녹음 해놓은 거나 아니면 이제 검찰이 어떻게 구체적으로 이야기 했는지. 문자주신 날에 좀 자세하게 이야기가 오고 간 것이 있다. 검찰에서 누구한테 이걸 줘라 뭐 이런 이야기까지 나왔다. 한 번 뵐 수 있을까 싶어서 전화드렸다"라고 말하는 등 피고인 A가 검찰 고위층과 확실히 연결되어 있음을 확인시켜 줄 수 있다고 하면서 다시 만나자고 제안하였고, 위 AM은 이를 승낙하였다.

The Defendants, around March 22, 2020, at the P Office located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, talked with the above AM directly or through the following conversations, and the above AM informed the above BB of its content through telegram text messages, etc. The above BB visited the victim at the Seoul Southern-gu detention center and sent it to the victim.

피고인들은 위 AM에게 "대검에 알아보니 '일단 최근에 Y 이 부분을 먼저 치고치다보면 당연히 이제 자연히 V까지 당연히 가지 않겠냐'고 했다. 다 짊어지면 20년, 30년 앞이다. 지금 14년인데 몇 년 더 안 때리겠냐. 그러니까 이야기 안 하면 더 때릴 거 아니냐. 이제 출소하면 아무리 빨라도 칠순이다. 내가 30년을 살고 우리 와이프도감방가고 막 이런 생각. 솔직하게 말씀드리면, 뭐 검찰 높은 사람들하고 통화도 좀 했어요. 굉장히 높은 사람들하고 애기를 하면서 한 머시기라고 있어요. 찾아보면 나와요. 바로 찾으면 나와요. 'AO' 한 칸 띠고 '최측근' 이렇게 치면 딱 나오는 사람이 그 사람 이요........이 사람은 이제 가장 최측근이고, 발언권은 굉장히 센 사람이고, 특수사건에 대하여 굉장히 경험이 많은 사람이고, 이 사람과 편하게 대화할 수 있는 사이다."라는 등의 말을 하고, 위와 같이 S과의 통화 녹음과 녹취록이라는 여러 힌트를 제시하면서 [ㅡ]"(V측이) 검찰에 내가 이거할 것도 달라질 것도 없는데 내가 A 기자님만 믿고 어떻게 가냐"는 거야. "(나는) 아니 너 20년 30년 두드려 맞을거 그래도 조금이라도", [二]아니 달라지지 왜 안 달라져. 검찰에도 무슨, 왜 안 달라지겠어, [ㅡ] "나는 당신에 대해서 그나마 긍정적으로 쓰면서 당신의 최악의 상황은 (부인이) 같이 깜빵에 가는 그 정도는 피해봅시다".....그러니 조금 시간을 달라고 해서, 계속 연락은 하고 있어요, [二] 잘해보세요, [ㅡ] 내가 "네가 앉아 가지고 가만히 수사하면서 당해가지고 탈탈 털리는 것보다 그래도 먼저 자진납세 하면서 하는 이게 너한텐 낫지 않겠냐. 내가 할 수 있는건" (이라고 말했어요) [二](제보를 하면) 당연히 좋은 방향으로 가지, 기본적으로 보면 (검찰과) 한 배를 타는 건데, [ㅡ] 막말로 처음에 여기가 얘기한 건, 제가 안 된다고 하긴 했는데. "검찰 쪽을 연결해 줄 수 있냐"는 [二] 연결해줄 수 있지......제보해, 그 내용을 가지고 범정5)을 접촉해. [ㅡ]당신 어차피 계좌추적하면 다 털려요 하니까. 뭘 원해요? 가족을 원해요? 그나마 가족? 자기도 14년을 받으니까...[二]그걸 가지고 우리랑 대화하고 싶다면 확실하게 믿을만한 대화의 통로를 핵심적으로 연결해줄 수 있는 거지」라고 말한 내용 등이 녹음된 녹음파일을 들려주고, 그 파일을 녹취한 것이라고 하면서 녹취록을 아울러 보여주며 S과 긴밀하게 연결되어 있다고 말하면서 피해자와 가족이 Y과 관련한 강력한 수사를 통해 중한 처벌을 받을 것이라는 취지를 강조하였다.

In addition, the Defendants are punished by the victims or families who were major shareholders of the Y, such as “if you do not see, it will be 14 years now and more than several years. I emphasize that the property would be difficult to lead. I want to observe the Y, but I want to protect the family even if you do. .... When we want to do so at the highest time of the prosecution, I would like to say that I would be punished by the victims or families who were major shareholders of the Y, and that the victims would be subject to more severe punishment if I would not state the bitr information, such as the price manipulation by AC, etc.

(i) Suspension of crime

At around 20:50 on March 22, 2020, the Defendants, despite the aforementioned intimidation, were unable to obtain the victim’s confidential information from the passport personnel, including AC, and such series of illegal coverage was detected by another broadcasting company, and thus, it was no longer possible for the Defendants to carry out coverage, and the contact between the victims and their families was suspended upon receiving instructions from the head of the P news Report Headquarters BE who identified the circumstances.

C. Conclusion

From February 14, 2020 to March 22, 2020, the Defendants threatened the victims to the effect that they will be subject to severe punishment for the victims and their family members in connection with the Y investigation unless they make a statement of corruption information on the personnel affairs of AC, etc., because they are closely connected with the victim's high-ranking floor of the prosecution and the main body of the prosecution, and conspired the victims, who are drinking, to state the information on the personnel affairs of AC and other passport, etc.;

B. As described in paragraph (2) of the above, the victim was sentenced to a punishment of 14 years and six months by sending the victim a letter directly to the victim and having the victim talk on behalf of the defendant, and the contents of the conversation were delivered to the victim through the south of AM, etc., and the victim was in custody in the detention house, and the victim mentioned the specific internal investigation inside the Y investigation, and the high-scale investigation is carried out, and the victim and his family members were closely connected with the S, under the premise that the victim and his family members were punished by heavy punishment, and thus, they could have an impact on the prosecution investigation. The mere statement of the secret information of the passport personnel, including AC, including AC, tried to threaten the victim as if the victim and his family members live, and tried to state the secret information of the passport personnel, such as AC. However, the defendants' unlawful news gathering by the head of the P news Report Headquarters, which came to know that the unlawful news gathering by the victim was spread by the broadcasting company, suspended contact between the victim and his family members.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to threaten the victim to have the victim state information about the personnel affairs of the passport, such as AC without any legal obligation, but failed to achieve that intent.

2. Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

(a) common arguments;

The Defendants did not notify the victim of specific harm, and did not have a position to punish the victim heavier by exercising influence over the prosecution. The Defendant merely attempted to provide the victim with coverage information about AC, etc. so that he/she can get a preference in relation to investigation, and there is no threat that the above coverage information will be punished, unless it is provided.

B. Defendant B’s assertion

Defendant B did not intend to commit the crime of attempted coercion, but did not conspired with Defendant A to commit the crime.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

A crime of coercion is an offense that interferes with the exercise of a person’s right by violence or intimidation or forces another person to perform an act without any duty. Here, intimidation means to objectively restrict the freedom of decision-making or to an extent that may interfere with the freedom of criminal conduct. To recognize such intimidation, there must be a concrete threat of harm and injury that may be deemed possible. It may be sufficient for an offender to have awareness that the other party would have inflicted harm on the other party through speech or behavior even if not explicitly stated, it may be indirectly conducted by a third party. It is also a threat of harm and injury even in cases where an offender demands the delivery of property or pecuniary advantage on the basis of his/her occupation, status, etc., and the other party makes the other party feel a threat of harm and injury if the other party refuses to comply with such demand. Whether an offender has expressed harm and injury to the degree that it may cause harm and injury to the other party as a result of an offender’s request for such an actor’s duty, social status, and mutual relation with the other party’s duty and duty cannot be reasonably determined in light of the circumstances related to the other person’s duty or duty.

In the case of intimidation, not only notifying the perpetrator that he/she would have a direct harm, but also notifying a third party that he/she would have a harm. However, in such a case, only where the notifying person made an explicit or implied speech or behavior that the third party believe that the third party's act is in a position that may actually control or affect the third party, or the third party's act is perceived by the intent of the notifying person, it can be evaluated as an act that the notifying person notifies that he/she would have a direct harm. If the notifying person made such explicit or implied speech or behavior or the other party did not recognize it as above, even if the other party actually made an appearance, such an act of notifying person cannot be deemed as a crime of intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do6155, Dec. 8, 2006).

B. Organization of issues

① The instant facts charged are based on the premise that the timely eight specific coercions constitute a single comprehensive coercion, and among the single comprehensive crimes, the so-called “competing crime” appears to have been prosecuted. The single comprehensive crime, which is a series of concurrent crimes, is a crime that infringes on the same legal interests by having certain time and place relevance under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do1686, Sept. 24, 1985). As such, in principle, the elements of the crime of attempted coercion are satisfied for each charges indicated as specific coercions.

Therefore, even if the facts charged as stated by specific coercion do not meet the elements of the crime of attempted coercion individually, if it is judged whether or not a crime of attempted coercion is established by evaluating as a whole or ex post facto, the establishment of the crime of attempted coercion depends not only on the subjective elements of the victim, but also on the basis that it is difficult to exercise the appropriate right of defense of the defendants.

② The crime of coercion refers to obstructing a person’s exercise of right by assault or intimidation or having another person do an unobligatory act. Here, “non-obligatory act” refers to an act that does not have any legal obligation arising from any statute, contract, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1233, Nov. 29, 2012). In a case of an individual who is not subject to a request for disclosure of information, it cannot be deemed that an obligation to cooperate in the request for coverage by the press does not constitute a legal obligation. Therefore, the act requested by the victim constitutes “non-obligatory act” as referred to in the crime of coercion.

Meanwhile, as one of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution, the media has the right to free access to the Information Institute and the freedom to freely publish its covered information (Article 3(3) of the Act on Press Arbitration and Remedies, etc. for Damage Caused by Press Reports), and unless there are special cases, requesting for coverage to an individual who is an information can be said to require an "non-obligatory act in light of the nature of the act."

Therefore, even if a reporter of a press organization, even if he/she did an inappropriate or unlawful act in violation of news gathering ethics in the course of requesting news gathering with respect to public interest matters, it should be carefully determined so that the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution and laws should not be reduced in the rate of coercion under the Criminal Code.

③ The content of the harm and injury that the Defendants informed to the victim in this case is that, if the Defendants did not provide information about coverage related to AC, etc. to the Defendant, the victims and their families will be subject to heavy punishment through the Y investigation currently in progress. However, the Defendants, who are press organizations, are the Defendants, and the Defendants, who are the subjects of being provided with information for coverage, are the prosecutors who are in charge of investigation or prosecution, and who are in charge of criminal punishment for the victims at the stage of investigation or prosecution.

As seen above, the realization of the harm and injury so notified can also be evaluated as having been directly and indirectly notified by a third party. However, in a case where the subject of notifying the harm and injury and the subject of realizing the harm and injury are different, it may be evaluated as having the same effect that the Defendants directly notified that the Defendants would have the harm and injury only in a case where the Defendants made an explicit or implied speech or behavior that the Defendants engaged in the Y investigation would practically control the prosecution's act or believe that they are in a position to influence the prosecution, or where the prosecution's act related to the Y investigation would be likely to depend upon the intent of the Defendants. If the Defendants either made the aforementioned explicit or implied speech or behavior or the victim did not have made such awareness, even if the Defendants actually committed the crime of coercion, it cannot be deemed as having been a concrete threat of harm and injury to the extent that such Defendants' act could think that the crime of coercion might have occurred.

④ In order to establish the crime of attempted coercion, assault or intimidation, which is the means thereof, ought to reach the maturity thereof, and intimidation may take place when the harm notified reaches the other party and the other party knows its meaning (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). Of specific coercions, there is no problem in the case of coercions through correspondence among the specific coercions, but in the case of coercions with BF, an agent of the victim, the Defendants was finally delivered to the victim through the intermediary, such as BF and BG, and thus, it is also important to determine whether the core content of the message that the Defendants intended to transfer was properly delivered to the victim through the intermediary.

⑤ Ultimately, the key issue of the instant case is that: (a) the Defendants’ explicit and implicit words and actions that make the Defendants believe that they are in a position to influence the prosecutor’s office in charge of the Y investigation; (b) whether the Defendants were aware that the said prosecutor’s actions may depend on the Defendants’ will; (c) whether the Defendants were forced to act in the south of the BF, the content of the message that the Defendants intended to transfer and whether the message was properly delivered to the victims via the intermediary. Therefore, we examine whether the Defendants’ specific coercion as indicated in the facts charged around the aforementioned issue constitutes a crime of attempted coercion.

C. Specific determination

(1) Part of coercion by correspondence

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is insufficient to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that Defendant A7 (Defendant A7) sent to the victim five times a notice of specific harm and injury likely to have occurred to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(A) As to the first letter

① It is recognized that Defendant A personally sent the victim with no one-day correspondence, and the victim mentioned the term of punishment, etc. already finalized or pending trial, and the prosecution will resume at once. However, it may be added to the victim’s additional punishment through the above investigation. As such, it is acknowledged that Defendant A requested to provide information on corruption in relation to party affairs, such as AC, while requesting information on the victim’s personal affairs.

② However, Defendant A’s sending the above correspondence to the victim appears to be a part of news gathering activities in accordance with the Y investigation coverage program, which was put into the Kakakao Stockholm Group TV room that was jointly owned by Defendant A around February 6, 2020 with the reporters of the P legal team, and the content of the above correspondence is similar to the purport of this writing written in the above TV room.

③ In addition to P at the time, articles were prepared by the prosecution's trends, investigation plans, etc. related to Y or BC investigation in many media companies, and some media8) dealt with 'Yluluor theory of the president of the AC AF organization'. As such, it is reasonable to view that 'AC and the possibility of 'Y or X' were 'public interest' in media reports, etc.

④ On February 6, 2020, before sending the above letter, the Defendants visited Yangju-si, which is the victim’s domicile, and attempted to interview with the victim’s family members. On the 12th day of the same month, the U.S. Prosecutor’s Office’s official gazette or information related to news gathering was sought. Defendant B performed news gathering activities on various pages, including only the official gazettes of the Z prosecutor’s office around the 14th day of the same month.

⑤ Although it is difficult to view Defendant A’s sending of correspondence directly to the victim, who was detained in the detention house, as an act of gathering news, it appears that Defendant A was selected by means of accessing the victim for coverage, since the interview with the reporter was strictly restricted according to the policy of the detention house at the time. Defendant A expressed his/her own name, name, press organization, contact information, and address.

6. The victim received a report on the press articles through the employees at the time, and received several legal assistance from several defense counsel with respect to the case pending in the appellate trial and the case of additional accusation. Accordingly, the fact that the fact that the defendant A's above letter is referred to as the "AO that the investigation related to Y-related investigation will be carried out in a serious degree" is likely to have already been known through the press report or the defense counsel, and unlike others, the defendant A knew that it is specifically connected with the prosecutor's office or there is no content that the victim could recognize it as such.

7) The victim stated to the effect that the victim received the first letter in this court that "the content was too unfair, but the content was too poor," and that BI, an executive officer of X, who received similar contents in the similar time from the defendant A, stated in the prosecutor's office that "I would like to send the correspondence to the prisoner in this way," and that "I would like to do so" (Evidence No. 9438 pages), and the BJ, upon receipt of similar contents, told the above defendant that "I would not communicate with the above defendant."

(B) As to the second letter

① On February 19, 2020, when the victim received the first letter, Defendant A sent a second letter stating that “The investigation of Zine’s Y was conducted excessively, and six prosecutors were already conducted. The prosecution started an investigation into the victim’s property and all family property are likely to be confiscated.”

② In light of the time when Defendant A sent the above letter and its content, etc., the above Defendant’s intent can be seen as having violated news gathering information sought by putting the victim hotly or psychological pressure through the above letter. It is sufficient to deem such an act to be a violation of news gathering ethics). Indeed, the victim would have been seriously receiving the second letter and accepted it, and discussed in advance with BG, etc. regarding countermeasures against the letter from this time.

③ However, it is difficult to say that the above Y investigation-related news mentioned above Y investigation-related news was mostly reported to the media or through news gathering, and that the possibility of compulsory investigation of family members or property is a negative prospect that may lead the victim to uneasiness. However, it is difficult to say that the above Y investigation-related news was made an explicit and implicit speech that the victim would be punished with severe punishment by exercising influence on the prosecution if the victim did not provide information about AC, etc., because it is difficult to view it as a specific information that is not connected with the prosecution itself.

④ 피해자는 이 법정에서 2차 서신을 받고 나서 심각성을 느끼게 된 이유에 관하여 '검찰이 목적을 가지고 수사하면 아무리 무죄여도 소명하기 어렵다는 것을 알기에 또다시 구렁텅이에 빠진다는 생각이 들었다'라고 진술하였는데, 피해자가 상고심까지 진행된 재판 끝에 공소사실 기재와 같이 사기죄 등으로 징역 12년의 형이 확정된 점 등에 비추어 보면,10) 위와 같은 피해자의 생각은 자신이 종전 사건에서 억울하게 처벌받았다는 주관적인 판단에 기한 것으로 보인다.

(C) As to the third letter

① The fact that Defendant A, who was working for the victim’s company in the third letter, referred to the possibility of prosecutorial investigation in the name of the company known to be invested by AW or X, and requested the victim to provide coverage information related to AC, etc., following the first and second letter is recognized.

② However, in fact, AW11) is an official seal, and there is inconvenience with the victim, such as defamation and insult, etc. from X around July 2016. It is difficult to view that Defendant A, a reporter in charge of legal assistance, who has already been aware of the fact through the media, refers to the above facts, thereby having a specific connection with the prosecution or having a position to affect the prosecution in relation to the Y investigation, solely on the ground that Defendant A, a reporter in charge of legal assistance, who has already been aware of the fact.

③ Even if Defendant A referred to the above facts as well as the prosecutorial investigation situation, it can be strongly punished by expanding Y investigation into the victim, according to the result of coverage by the principal. Whether only the victim is subject to heavy punishment is detained or not. It is reasonable to interpret it to the extent that it is reasonable to interpret it as “to provide information on the corruption of the emotional relations personnel who had previously been unable to do so.”

④ Interpretation of this to the meaning of “a victim would be subject to heavy punishment through a person related to the prosecution who is connected with the prosecution without providing coverage information, as shown in the facts charged is not only an extension of the above defendant’s disadvantage but also inconsistent with the literal meaning of correspondence.

⑤ In this court, the victim stated that the above AW was in charge of duties to the extent that the company plans for events or regards the society, and was not in a position of being aware of important matters, such as budget expenditure or party affairs. However, it is difficult for the prosecution to intervene in the prosecutor’s office with the intention to make it an essential object of the investigation and make it impossible to make such a statement to the effect that the fear becomes greater. The above statement itself is difficult to easily understand it, and even if the victim suffered fear of apprehension and fear, it appears that it was based on a subjective judgment based on the previous prosecutor’s investigation experience, such as in the case of the second letter.

(D) As to the fourth letter

① On February 25, 2020, Defendant A prepared and sent to Defendant A, a proxy of the victim, the second letter, and the second letter, followed by the second letter. On February 27, 2020, the victim received the said letter. The victim stated in this court that “The fear of the above letter was in fact different from the present letter.” The victim stated in this court that “The fear of the letter was maximized as to how to make a statement how to use it.”

② Summary of the contents of the above correspondence is as follows: (a) it is highly likely that the victim or his/her family would be subject to severe punishment through a Y investigation; (b) it would be able to maximize the effect of a report by providing information to us; and (c) it would be able to obtain the highest preference as much as possible if the report is made through a broadcast. The fourth letter is the most specific and detailed amount of correspondence among them; and (d) in particular, the possibility of punishment for the wife of the victim who was at the time when the victim was suffering from a disease is specifically mentioned in detail, and thus, it appears that the victim might feel fear.

(3) However, as seen earlier, if the subject of the threat of harm and injury (the defendant A) and the subject of the harm and injury (the prosecutor who has been in charge of the Y investigation) are different, it may be evaluated as the same act as that of the above defendant's notice only when the defendant either made an explicit or implied speech or behavior that the prosecutor's act in charge of the Y investigation is in a position to de facto control the prosecution's act or to believe that it is in a position to influence the prosecutor's office, or when the victim recognizes that the act in relation to the Y investigation may be affected by the above defendant's intention.

④ However, Defendant A may not do with ‘official with the prosecutor's office' in the above letter. He stated several references that he could deny the possibility of connection with the prosecutor's office, such as: (a) he cannot do so; (b) he cannot do so; (c) he cannot do so; or (d) he cannot do so with the prosecutor's office's office' or (e) he makes it difficult to do so; and (c) as an alternative, when the victim informed the above Defendant of the corruption of personnel relations, such as AC, the victim reported it in P to make it possible for the victim to take the action.

⑤ With regard to the above mentioned mentioned above by Defendant A, the victim stated in the prosecutor’s office that “the victim continued to see that it would be the most snow of law. If the victim does not comply with the request for information, it would have been able to continue to take pressure on investigation and be punished for his/her family members (Evidence Records 12404-12405 pages).” However, in light of the literal meaning, it is difficult to see that the victim gave a suggestion that Defendant A may be punished for his/her family members if the victim does not respond to the request for information through the above correspondence, and it is difficult to find any other objective grounds for the victim’s thought otherwise.

6. On the other hand, Defendant A stated in the above letter that “I may directly contact with the senior executives of the prosecutor’s office in coverage of the prosecution for a multi-year period. As seen earlier, Defendant A, first of all, did not have the prosecutor’s office and the prosecutor’s office, and could not proceed with the instant case in a specific direction. In line with the news report, Defendant A stated that “I may request the senior executives of the prosecutor’s office to the senior executives.”

7) It is unreasonable to interpret that such Defendant A’s speech and behavior in the same manner as the facts charged is “to punish the victim and his/her family member seriously through the senior floor of the prosecution connected to the case where he/she does not provide coverage information” as the facts charged. It is not only inconsistent with the literal meaning, but also it is unreasonable to interpret the facts in the direction excessively unfavorable to the Defendant.

(E) As to the fifth letter

① As seen in the following, the fifth letter is short that the Defendants sent the victim the last letter before the Defendants came to have BF and the second met with the victim, and the materials requested by the victim (such as a record of recording) have been prepared, and there is no expression or content to deem that there was a notice of harm and injury to the victim.

② In addition, the Prosecutor stated that “The fifth letter was not written to inform BG of its content due to the lack of any particular content (Evidence No. 11585 pages) and that “The fifth letter was written by the Prosecutor’s Office,” and that “The fifth letter was written by the Prosecutor’s Office, i.e., the victim and the victim did not have any memory with respect to the content of the said letter.” (Evidence No. 10446 pages), and that the fifth letter was written by the Prosecutor’s Office, i.e., the victim and the victim did not have any memory with respect to the content of the said letter;

(2) The part of coercion by force with BF

This part of the facts charged is based on the premise that the Defendants’ agent (BF) and part of the conversation and speech and behavior divided by the Defendants and Defendant A made up of a part of the conversation and speech and behavior with BF prior to the first interview with BF, and the core content of the message that the Defendants intended to turn out to the victim through the above dialogue and speech and behavior is properly delivered to the victim.

However, given that dialogue or call is an act conducted in the course of communication with the other party, in determining whether such an act is subject to criminal punishment, careful consideration should be given to the motive or background of the conversation or speech and behavior, the overall context and expression of the conversation, and whether the conversation or speech and behavior was made by the other party’s inducement or compromise. It should not be limited to the speech or speech and behavior revealed on the outside.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants’ speech and behavior constitutes a threat of specific harm and injury as stated in the crime of coercion, and that the core content of the message intended to be delivered through BF was properly delivered to the victim. There is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(A) As to the first Mannam (including currency)

① After receiving the first and second correspondences from Defendant A, the victim accepted the proposal of BG in which BG had the BF met with the detention house as an agent of the victim. BG was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year for attempted fraud at the Seoul Central District Court on December 2016 and received a verdict of innocence at the appellate court and the final appeal court on the grounds that BG continued to contact with BF on the other hand, while the victim was not aware of the fact that the BF had almost all aspects of contact with BF (Evidence 11535 of the evidence record).

② The Defendant A’s letter obtained from the victim was sent to the Kakao Stockholm or Meso-mail by photo, and the Defendant A’s contact address in which BF was sent first to the Defendant A, but did not receive a telephone, was sent to BF on February 24, 202, and the call as indicated in the facts charged was made.

③ There was a statement that Defendant A, in the currency with BF, maintained a close relationship with the prosecutor’s office as shown in the facts charged. However, before that statement, BF read, “I am the prosecutor’s office and the assistant principal, so I am the same, and because I am the representative must do so, I am the first thing about whether I are connected with the prosecutor’s office (Evidence No. 9970-9971 of the evidence record), and I am the above to the effect that I am the answer to such leading question of BF.

④ It is recognized that Defendant A told Defendant A, on February 25, 2020, to the effect that Defendant A was aware of the following: (a) “I have a trust relationship with the prosecutor’s office; (b) I have a high-ranking person’s call or conversation with the prosecutor’s office may be recorded,” and (c) “I have died if I have become aware of it.”

⑤ However, the prosecutor’s Y investigation situation and possibility of punishment for family members, etc. explained by Defendant A, are limited to a fluent and abstract outlook, such as the content reported to the media or the expression in the letter sent before, and it is difficult to view BF as a specific speech or behavior to believe that the above Defendant is in a position to influence the prosecutor’s office.

6. In addition, it seems that the words suggesting the possibility of friendship or connection with the person in charge of the prosecution are to know the BF, and it does not seem that the BF, who knows that the defendant A is a person who has access to the legal system that can naturally form friendship with the person in charge of the prosecution, does not seem to be a speech or behavior to suspect the possibility of specific connection with the above defendant and the prosecutor's office.

7) Although the phrase “(if a person becomes aware of it)” is a misunderstanding expression, it seems that the BF immediately before that expression “I sees that the V representative now tells son’s assistance,” and “I see why I will do so, and why I am hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hys hy

8) Therefore, Defendant A’s above words, although the method of expression was adopted, it would be subject to more severe punishment if it was not provided with 'AC, etc.', rather than 'bF’, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A’s above words, rather than 'bF's response to the above words, "where the term of punishment for a victim whose severe punishment has been determined could increase through this Y investigation, it would be considered when the victim’s term of punishment could be increased, and the term of punishment may be reduced."

9) Therefore, it is difficult to view Defendant A as “a concrete threat of harm and injury to the extent that the crime of coercion could have occurred” under the crime of coercion by using a speech and behavior in the first place in the south or in the currency with BF.”

(10) On the other hand, the victim has consistently maintained the position from the investigative agency to this court that Y investigation (in a case where an executive officer issues bonds with preemptive rights on or around April 2014, and around April 7, 2019, he/she does not have to be punished, and he/she does not have to inform him/her of the lack of any fact that he/she provided money and valuables for personnel affairs, such as AC.).

11. However, as a proxy of the victim, BF made a speech and behavior as if the victim and his family members receive an investigation under any suspicion in relation to the above Y investigation, what is the compulsory investigation plan against the victim, what is the specific reason why the victim is requested to summon from the Z public prosecutor's office, and what is the specific reason why the victim is requested to summon from the Z public prosecutor's office. As above, if the defendant A impairs the victim through the person concerned with the prosecution, he made a speech and behavior as if he is able to provide an account book or remittance of money and valuables for the current personnel relationship, and the attitude of BF was continued in the 2 and 3 fully south of the defendants as follows.

(B) As to the second Mannam

① Defendant A sent the victim the fourth letter that contains the above-mentioned progress and future plans, etc. after the lapse of the first time with BF. As seen earlier, the above Defendant stated that the above-mentioned letter is that it is difficult for the victim to record the currency with the prosecutorial relations that the victim requires.

② On March 6, 2020, BF obtained the fourth letter through BG sent the Defendant a text message with the following content:

It was confirmed that N. N. N. N. N. H. sent to V representative. However, if we think that N. N. N.’s commitment to “Wing” was denied, the content of that letter is no longer the same as that of N. N. L.Wing, we need to keep one direction rather than that of many people. In addition, we need to keep other executives.

③ On March 10, 2020, Defendant A sent five letters to the victim, “A significant solution has been made to the part discussed with BF as seen earlier,” and Defendant A sent letters to BF as the discussed part.

④ On the same day, BF received the above letters, sent letters to Defendant A, “I will have a contact even after the first day.” On March 11 of the same year, the above Defendant sent letters to Defendant A, which read that “I am on the coffee shop that had been done before the said date,” thereby, the Defendants and BF took the second full part.16)

⑤ On the other hand, on March 6, 2020, the victim had never known at the time when he sent the above text messages to Defendant A (Evidence Nos. 11583), and even the fact that the BF and the Defendants had the second met with BG on the same day.

④ From the second Man-Nam, BF introduced the Defendants themselves as “the very long-standing relationship of the victim” (Evidence No. 10040 pages), and the Defendants stated BF as a senior executive officer of the prosecution anonymous, while the other party to the conversation stated that he was an anonymous senior executive officer of the prosecution.

7. On the other hand, prior to showing the above recording, the Defendants examined BF as to whether they have material to provide money and valuables to the party concerned, such as AC, and divided the following conversations with BF (Evidence Record 10046-105 pages).

B: At the same time, the bookbook remittances are different.BF: examples, account files, examples, examples, and .B: each other.

B: The number of persons in B is the approximate, but I am am : The extent of the No. 200 am : am : am :, am : am : am : am : am : neither 'B' nor 'B' nor 'A' nor 'B' : am : am : No am : The am : The am : The am am : The am am : The am am am : the am am am am am am am am., the am am am. am am am., the am am am. am am., the am am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am., the am. am. am. am. am. am... am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am. am.. am...... am. am........................... am...................................................................... am am am am.................. am............ am..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

8) In regard to this, the victim stated in the prosecution that “BF directly fened him or her through BG attorney-at-law.” The victim stated to the effect that “I do not directly fen him or her fened him or her. I do not have any fact that I do not have any money and valuables, and there is no book to prove it (Evidence No. 2256 pages).”

9) In full view of the series of processes from Defendant A and BF’s first to fifth letters, and from the second to the south of Korea, Defendant A was connected with the higher level of the prosecution, Defendant A demanded the above Defendant to provide a victim with respect to the investigation of Y through a person related to the prosecution, and first expressed the BF’s request, and first, the “it is impossible to provide coverage information unless the above materials were available,” and the “BF was prepared to provide coverage information” upon receiving the communication of BF and preparing a recording and making the recording and making the recording so called “BF was prepared,” and thus, the Defendants and BF came to have only two South Koreas while making a speech and behavior with the victim as if the BF were on the part of the victim and the Defendants and BF had the second two Koreas, and even if the Defendants were to have known of the fact that the Defendants were to provide money and other valuables to the victim, as if they were in the record of the facts charged.

(10) If there are circumstances, the defendants' act of presenting a transcript in the second parallel with BF, which is the victim's agent, is not a speech or behavior in the sense that the victim's recording is connected with the prosecutor's office, but it is not a speech or behavior in the sense of promising the victim's preference to the prosecutor's office according to the BF's request, so it is difficult to view that there was a "specific threat of harm and injury" as stated in the crime of coercion.

1) If such Defendants’ act is interpreted to mean that if they do not provide information about 'AC, etc. as in the facts charged, they will be punished heavily by the victim and his/her family through the prosecutor’s related persons connected to the Defendants, this would not only extend excessively unfavorable interpretation to the Defendants as seen earlier, but also lead to the conclusion that the Defendants would threaten the victim at the request of BF, a proxy of the victim, thereby going against common sense and rule of experience.

(C) As to the third metrey

① From March 19, 2020, the BF, which did not communicate the Defendants, sent the following text messages to Defendant A around March 19, 202.

I wish to deliver the position of the Nr. V representative to the prosecution investigation of the Nr. The V representative will be on the match. I think that the truth will be clarified regardless of how it is, while it is difficult to cope with 14 years and 6 months, it will also be frighten. I think that I think that I think it is impossible to confirm the authenticity of the Nr. V representative because I can not confirm the authenticity of the Nr. V., under the circumstances that Nr. is not guaranteed to Nr., but is not notified to Nr., in any way. I think that I do not have any specific material to Nr.V., but we can understand the spirit of V representative, if I receive it in the P.M., regardless of what kind of material is available.

② On March 20, 2020, Defendant A sent a text message to BF that “I wish not to do so, I would like to give an explanation because I would like to make a recording with the prosecutor’s office on the 21st of the same month following the following day. I would like to give an explanation. I would like to choose if I want not to do so, I would like to do so.” At the P office on the 22th of the same month following the following day, the Defendants and BF would have been 3 met at the P office.

③ From the above date, BF sent the content of the conversation to the Defendants on the Twitday (23th of the same month) or on the Twitday (24th of the same month), “If the victim makes a decision for mind, he will send the letter to the Defendant’s home address if the victim makes a decision for mind” (Evidence No. 10091st of the record). The Defendants, as recorded in the facts charged, suggested that the other party is well-known as AO’s side at the time of the conversation, show the record of the recording prepared by the Defendant A to BF while suggesting that the other party is well-known as AO’s side at the time of the conversation.

④ Meanwhile, on March 19, 2020, the victim stated that "the victim did not commit an illegal act in relation to the above text messages sent by BF to Defendant A on March 19, 2020, and thus, did not receive any intimidation, and the content was delivered to BF through BG (Evidence Record 12383 pages)."

⑤ Even if the victim’s above statement was true, in light of the content of the text message as seen earlier and the words and actions made by BF to the Defendants, BF delivered the victim’s intent to the effect that “BF may provide information on coverage that the Defendants require to verify additional materials that could guarantee the victim’s preference, in addition to the recording, distorted the victim’s truth.”

6) Therefore, even if the Defendants suggested that the Defendants were the high-ranking executives known as a victim’s agent in the middle of AO and expressed his/her conversation recording and expressed his/her voice recorded file, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants made a speech or behavior in the sense of promising the victim’s wife according to BF’s demand and notified the victim of specific harm and injury.

(D) Whether the message via MaF has been delivered to the victim

① The victim stated in the prosecutor’s office that “At the time of the interview with the detention house on February 28, 2020 with the Defendant A and BF, the victim heard the contents of the detention house on February 28, 2020, but it was almost overlapping with the contents of the fourth letter sent by the Defendant A, and it was often asked on the basis of the contents identified through the above letter (Evidence No. 11578 pages),” and that “BG around March 17 of the same year, would be aware of the media reports,” and that “I would have become aware of the media reports,” and that “I would have become aware of the media reports (Evidence No. 11588 pages),” and that “I would like to make a related person who was referred to in the Defendant A from the late 3000,000 to the prosecution, who was aware of his her her sconsium (Evidence evidence)” (Evidence No. 15878 pages 15788).

② At this Court, BG stated, “The overall purport of BF with respect to the second met, but some recording records are the same. However, the content of the recording was sent to the victim to the extent that it is related to the case in which the victim was involved.” (No. 14 pages of the record of examination of the witness to BG), and in relation to the third met, “BG’s memory, which took the result of the interview from BF to a short telegram message, was the content of S. At the time of meeting on March 25, 2020, the higher-ranking relationship with the prosecutor’s office, and the victim transferred this fact to the victim, and on the other hand, S was the close part of AO, and the victim was not punished for acts that were not related to the case in question, such as planning or investigation, and was seriously aware of it.” (No. 16-17 pages).

③ Meanwhile, although BF recorded the entire contents of the conversation or conversation with the Defendants, it did not deliver the recording or recording file to BG or the victims, it seems that the victims did not know that the Defendants and BF had any specific conversation between the Defendants through three times.

④ The core content of the message that the Defendants attempted to finally deliver to the victim via the BaC’s bF is that, as seen earlier, the Defendants would help the victim take the front place through the prosecutor’s office-related persons in relation to Y investigation. However, such message does not seem to have been properly delivered to the victim. Rather, in full view of the above circumstances, the victim accepted the message that the Defendants intended to transfer through BF would be subject to more severe punishment in relation to Y investigation through the prosecutor’s office-related persons unless he provides non-information such as BF.

⑤ On the other hand, on March 12, 2020, the victim was summoned by the Z District Prosecutors’ Office in relation to the previous overseas remittance details or the cash withdrawal details in the company’s account, and was investigated in the first part of the financial investigation of the same public prosecutor’s office in which X was an officer of the same public prosecutor’s office in the similar time between BP and B Q, etc., and the victim could be punished again through the Y investigation as the defendant was franked in correspondence A.

6. However, this is based on the result of the Defendants’ message distorted through BF, which is an intermediate transmission, and thus, cannot be held liable for the Defendants’ attempted crime.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this decision is announced in accordance with the main sentence of Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Hong Chang-ro

1) The investigation was initiated upon the suspicion that the former and present officers and employees of Y, who possess AE, a candidate for the ham virus, disposed of the shares using undisclosed information. However, a part of the media, upon the victim’s request by the representative director X, was reduced at the AE Technical Conference held at AE Hospital on 2015, and reported Y case and AC’s cruel suspicion.

2) From around September 2013 to around September 2014, X purchased Y stocks were KRW 3,000-5,000 per share. At the time of sale at the end of 2015, the price per share of Y stocks was approximately KRW 25,000 per share, which was approximately KRW 20,000-22,00 per share.

3) The phrase is interpreted as emphasizing that V would be 5 years of age and 70 years of age when he/she ends his/her life at the age of 55 and 14 years and when he/she is sentenced to 10 years of age due to additional investigation, etc.

4) Part of the amount that the victim acquired by deception flows into AY and AZ.

5) The term "crime Information Planning Office of the U.S. Prosecutor's Office," which is the previous organization of the U.S. prosecutor's office, is changed to that of the U.S. Prosecutor's Office.

6) Therefore, the issue of whether the Defendants were in a position that could have an impact on the prosecution is not an issue in the instant case, but is not subject to determination.

7) Defendant B appears not to be involved in the preparation and dispatch of Defendant A’s correspondence.

8) See Articles BH press as of February 14, 2020

9) Article 2(5) of the BK Association’s practice outline provides that “A member shall not use deceptive or coercive means in acquiring information.” Article 2 of the said Act provides that “A reporter shall not only observe the necessary examples when having contacted an individual or organization to gather news, but also shall not use any inefficient or unlawful means. Moreover, the reporter shall not threaten or bullying an individual to gather news.”

10) The victim appointed BG attorney as a defense counsel for the request for review of the instant case.

11) In 2012, there was a career of being registered as a preliminary candidate for BL political party in the local election, and after X retirement, he also worked as a secretary in charge of BL.

12) Defendant A introduced the victim himself as "a reporter (the first letter) who is coverage by the PP legal team or "a reporter (the second letter) who controls coverage by the PP legal team" (the second letter).

13) 피해자는 당시 BF이나 BG으로부터 피고인 A와의 1차 만남의 경과나 그 후의 사정 등을 제대로 전달받지 못하였기 때문에, 피고인 A가 위 서신에서 '대표님 지인 분과 이야기 나눴던 부분 중 상당부분이 해결 됐다'고 한 의미를 구체적으로 이해하지 못하였을 것으로 보인다.

14) Defendant B was present only in the second and third mets of BF wave.

15) According to the results of the above Y investigation, the Z District Prosecutors' Office was prosecuted on May 3, 2020 by five including BN and BO, etc. A victim was not prosecuted in relation to the above suspicion.

16) According to the information of BF at the time of the second arrival, BM press reporters were coverage of accompanying the Defendants.

17) He appears to be a clerical error in 'Neman'.