Chuncheon Attorney | Chuncheon Criminal Attorney Assists Client in Attempted Extortion Case and Obtains a Suspended Sentence

The client approached the victim immediately upon witnessing this.

The client demanded 5 million won, saying that the client would not report the drunk driving that had just occurred, but the victim ignored this and walked past the client.

The client then sent a text message to the number on the front of the victim's vehicle and demanded money on two occasions, engaging in extortionate conduct.

However, the victim did not respond, so the client did not receive any money, and the extortionate conduct ended in an attempt.

Four days after that day, the client received a call from the police and learned of having been reported for attempted extortion.

The client explained that they had contacted the victim again and conveyed apologies on several occasions, but these were not accepted, and the client ultimately came to be investigated on the charge of attempted extortion.

The client, fearing that the client might be punished for extortion as a result of an impulsive act, earnestly asked the attorney to help the client avoid an actual custodial sentence at the very least.

The statutes on extortion reviewed by the attorney are as follows.

Article 350 of the Criminal Act (Extortion)

The elements of the crime of extortion are as follows.

Extortion is committed when all three elements are satisfied.

The attorney explained that if the client had threatened the victim and taken money, this would also fall under the crime of intimidation under the Criminal Act.

Article 283 of the Criminal Act (Intimidation, Intimidation of Lineal Ascendant)

The attorney explained that, because intimidation is a crime not punishable against the victim's will, a public prosecution cannot be instituted contrary to the victim's expressed intent.

In other words, if matters are resolved with the victim, the offense is not pursued.

The client witnessed the victim's drunk driving in an underground parking lot.

As soon as the drunk driving ended, the client approached the victim and confirmed the fact of the drunk driving.

When the victim denied it, the client impulsively demanded money in exchange for pretending not to have seen what had just happened.

However, the attorney argued that the sum demanded from the victim was a small amount of about 5 million won, that the victim ignored it and walked past, that this did not amount to an act of intimidation, and that it therefore did not satisfy the elements of the crime of extortion.

The attorney also argued that the two text messages were likewise ignored, so that ultimately no money was obtained and the conduct ended in an attempt.

The client argued that this was not a planned crime.

On the way home from work, the client witnessed the victim, who had driven while intoxicated in the underground parking lot, and impulsively demanded money.

The attorney argued that it was realistically impossible for the client to have anticipated and planned in advance that the victim would drive while intoxicated, waited in the underground parking lot, then approached the victim and demanded money.

After being reported for extortion, the client tried, albeit belatedly, to apologize to the victim and reach a settlement, but failed.

The attorney argued, however, that the client had continued to attempt contact in order to apologize and had delivered letters of apology to the victim more than 10 times, conveying genuine regret.