The case holding that a victim cannot be deemed to have committed a threat that has notified a certain harm to the victim.

In order to communicate with the victim's wife at night, the victim's home has not been able to 20 to 30 minutes of the victim's phone when he/she received a phone from the victim. However, when he/she saw or she took off a phone at night, it is only limited to the extent that the victim made a verbal speech to stimulate her emotions such as having the victim feel hynas, Nanas, etc., and causing severe pain or anger, etc., and it cannot be deemed that it did not lead to a threat against which certain harm or harm to the victim's life, body, etc. has been threatened.

Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Busan District Court (84 High Court Decision 6547)

1. Of the judgment of the court below against the defendant, the part concerning the crime of Article 2-1 (f) and the crime of Article 2-2 (2) shall be reversed at the time of the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The defendant is not guilty of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act among the facts charged in the instant case.

2. The appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor as to the part of the crime of Article 2-2 (1) (a) through (e) is dismissed at the time of the original adjudication against the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to the whole of the facts charged is erroneous in law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and that the sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable, and the decision of the court below is too unreasonable. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the sentence of the court below is too too unreasonable and the amount of the punishment is unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, first of all:

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant and non-indicted 3's testimony at the court of the court below and the prosecutor's office, the non-indicted 1's testimony at the court of the court below and the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office of the police, and the testimony at the prosecutor's office of the non-indicted 2 as a whole, etc., and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged that the defendant threatened the victim with any danger and injury to the life or body of the victim by making the victim's non-indicted 1's house at night on August 2, 1984 and making the victim's door at night during the same time for 20 to 30 minutes and making the victim uneasy by making the victim's door at night, and by making the victim uneasy, such as she will do so.

However, as consistent from the police to the trial court, the defendant called the victim's house several times to communicate with the non-indicted 3 who is the wife of the victim, and the victim talks with one another at one time at the time of the victim's telephone, but the defendant's statement is not a threat to the victim. The defendant's statement is not any help to recognize the above facts charged, but the defendant's statement in the prosecutor's office of the court below is that the victim's own telephone from ordinary defendant 1 to the defendant's wife's wife 8, and it is difficult to find out the same part of the facts charged as the defendant's statement in the court below since it is hard to find that the victim's statement from the non-indicted 2's prosecutor's office 8's first time to the defendant's office 9 days after the victim's statement was made. It is also difficult to find the above part of the facts charged from the non-indicted 3's first time to the defendant's prosecutor's office. It is also difficult to find the above part of the above facts charged.

Finally, the victim non-indicted 1 was denied by the male who could not be identified in the first instance trial by the investigative agency on 1981. It was hard to accept the victim's new statement from 198 to 30 minutes on the same day between the male and female in the same voice during night, and from 1984, it was hard to accept the victim's new statement from 10 to 10 minutes on the same day. The victim's new statement from 8th day after 1984 that it was hard to 1 to 30 minutes on the ground that the victim's new statement was 9 days off, and it was hard to accept the victim's new statement from 9 to 19 days on the first day. The victim's new statement was 9 days off from 19 days on the same day, and it was hard to accept the victim's new statement from 19 days on the part of the defendant and 3 on September 6, 198.

In short, the evidence cited by the court below alone shows that the defendant made a multiple calls at the victim's home to communicate with the above non-indicted 3, and that when the victim received a phone, it is recognized that the defendant made a speech at one time, such as herman, her own country, etc., once, and that the victim made a speech at one time, and that the degree of such speech is limited to the victim's verbal abuse, such as causing severe pain or pain, and it is not deemed that the victim's life, body, etc., as stated in the facts charged, is threatened with a threat to a certain termination.

Therefore, among the facts charged in this case against the defendant, the part of the defendant's intimidationd by telephone at almost the same time from around 21:00 on August 1984 each day during the same period, should be pronounced not guilty because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts. However, the court below found the defendant guilty with only the evidence at that time. The court below found the defendant guilty by mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence or mistake in finding facts without evidence. Therefore, the argument on the appeal pointing this out is reasonable, and therefore, the part on the crime in this case as to the crime in this case shall not be reversed at the time of the original adjudication, which was sentenced to concurrent crimes with the above intimidation part of the court below.

3. Meanwhile, in accordance with Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, with regard to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act for which a judgment has become final and conclusive at the time of a trial and the part of the defendant's crime of multiple offenses committed on five occasions from November 27, 1982 to August 4, 1983, which are concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the Commission rendered a sentence of six months of imprisonment separately. Since the above sentence of the court below is deemed appropriate, the defendant and the prosecutor's appeal against this part is groundless.

4. Accordingly, in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor against the part concerning the crime of Article 2-2(1)(a) through (e) at the time of the original adjudication is dismissed, and pursuant to Article 364(6) of the same Act, among the judgment below against the defendant, the part concerning the crime of matters and the crime of Article 2-2(2) shall be reversed and the decision shall be rendered again as follows.

On August 28, 1984, at around 19:00 on August 28, 1984 and around 19:00 on February 29, 198, the Defendant, while knowing that Nonindicted 3 was a woman with her husband, had a sexual intercourse with the above Nonindicted 3 on one occasion at the Changwon hotel located in the Changwon city over two occasions.

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts in the original judgment and the trial court of the defendant;

1. Each statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below by Co-defendant 3 and Non-Indicted 1

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the accused and Nonindicted 3 as to the public prosecutor’s protocol and each statement of Nonindicted 1, which correspond to the facts in its holding, are written.

Each so-called "criminal defendant's ruling" falls under Article 241 (1) of the Criminal Act, and this constitutes concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Act, and thus, the criminal defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months within the scope of the term of punishment, in which the criminal sentence is more severe pursuant to Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the same Act, and the criminal penalty for concurrent crimes committed under Article 50 of the same Act.

The summary of the facts charged as to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act against the Defendant is from the day of December 1981 to the point of the charge that the Defendant: (a) from the point of view of the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violence, etc. in the Republic of Korea, the Defendant was threateningd with the victim Nonindicted 1’s house located in Nam-dong 168-dong 168-13 during the same period of time from around 21:0 on the mid-to mid-date date of August 1984, which had been frequently turd with the victim during the same period of time; (b) made the victim uneasy for 20 to 30 minutes by calls from the victim; and (c) made the victim’s statement that he will do harm to the life or body of the victim; (d) however, this constitutes a threat of the victim by the attitude that seems to cause harm to the victim’s life or body, as seen in the preceding reasons for reversal, and thus, should be pronounced innocent pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Jong-Un(Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-il's Office