If employees hand over resignation proposals to the CEO, is there a crime of intimidation? Threats [Supreme Court 2022. Dec. 15, Sentence, 2022 Do 9187, Judgment]

Link : https://law.go.kr/precSc.do?menuId=7&subMenuId=47&tabMenuId=213#licPrec232763

threat
[Supreme Court 2022. Dec. 15, Sentence. 2022 Do 9187, Judgment]

Conditions for establishing a crime of intimidation: In a crime of intimidation, "threat" generally means notifying a person of the harm that can cause fear, and intention as a subjective constituent requirement is recognizing and tolerating that the actor notifies such harm.

Defendant = employee / Victim = CEO of the company.

Regarding the requirements for establishing the crime of intimidation, we summarized the contents of this precedent as follows.

1. In an effort to normalize the company, the Defendant handed over a resignation proposal to the Victim, not an impure intention to directly harm the Victim.
2. Not only did the victim have the authority to accept or reject the resignation proposal, but the victim himself/herself was able to negotiate with the defendants to normalize the company.
3. In a situation where financial difficulties were worsening and wages were overdue, it was possible to predict to some extent that the Defendants would act to pressure the victims.

Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that it was not considered a crime of intimidation.

In this case, whether notifying the victim of certain disadvantages by delivering a resignation proposal proposed by the Defendants to normalize the company's management constitutes a crime of intimidation was discussed. At this time, the Supreme Court ruled that whether notified harm is generally sufficient to cause fear in people is an important criterion for determining whether a crime of intimidation is established.

Therefore, this case emphasized that various factors such as the interaction between the actor and the other party, the content of the notified disadvantages or harm, and the method of notifying the harm should be considered to determine whether a crime of intimidation is established. In addition, this precedent clearly stated that if a certain harm is notified to the other party as part of the exercise of the right, if such harm is acceptable in light of social norms, there is no crime of intimidation.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court judged that the resignation proposal proposed by the Defendants to the victims in this case was aimed at normalizing the company's management, and accordingly, the harm notified to the victims was not within the scope of intimidation. Therefore, the defendants' convictions for intimidation were revoked, and the previous sentences were invalidated, confirming their innocence. This ruling has become an important example of clarifying the criteria and scope of the crime of intimidation.[Sighing]