beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact-finding and the victim D’s attitude that both parents did not recognize their mistake at the same place, the Defendant had both parents returned home, followed the horse fighting, and took the same bath as indicated in the facts charged. On the following day, when fighting was conducted for the same reason, the Defendant was aware that it was false for the victim to have recognized the mistake of the Defendant in the past, and that it was excessive for the victim, the Defendant took the same bath as indicated in the facts charged.
Therefore, the Defendant did not notify the Defendant that it was sufficiently harmful that the Defendant made an emotional humiliation or an expression of decentralization would cause fear.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.
B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. A. 1) In a mistake of fact, a crime of intimidation refers to the notification of harm that may generally cause fear to a person by viewing it as a matter of course. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an actor to actually realize the harm and injury that the actor knew and citing that it is about such a degree of harm and injury. However, if the actor’s speech and behavior is merely merely an expression of a simple emotional humiliation or temporary dispersion, and it is objectively evident that there is no intention to harm in light of surrounding circumstances, it cannot be recognized as an act of intimidation or a threat, but whether there was an intention of intimidation or a threat shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account not only external appearance but also surrounding circumstances such as the background leading to such act and relation with the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 1991).