Anyang Attorney Case | The Client Who Retained an Anyang Attorney, a No-Referral Decision on Charges of Intimidation and Coercion

The client, who resides within Anyang, was in a situation in which the client had been the subject of a criminal complaint filed by a former girlfriend on suspicion of intimidation, coercion, and related offenses.

The complainant asserts that the client sent calls and text messages to the effect that the client would commit suicide, thereby committing intimidation, and that, through such threatening messages, the client coerced the complainant into coming to the complainant's home.

🔗Intimidation refers to communicating harm that is capable of arousing fear in a person. If it goes beyond a warning and gives rise to fear, it constitutes the crime of intimidation.

As a subjective element of the offense, intent consists of the perpetrator's recognition and acceptance of the fact that the perpetrator is communicating harm of such a degree.

For the crime of intimidation to be established, the content of the communicated harm must, when comprehensively considering the various circumstances before and after the act, such as the dispositions of the perpetrator and the other party, the surrounding circumstances at the time of the communication, and the degree of familiarity and the relative positions between the perpetrator and the other party, generally be sufficient to arouse fear in a person. (See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Do606 rendered on September 28, 2007, among others.)

The crime of coercion is the offense of obstructing the exercise of another person's rights or compelling another person to perform an act that the person is under no obligation to perform, by means of assault or intimidation.

Under the Criminal Act, a person who obstructs the exercise of another person's rights or compels another person to perform an act that the person is under no obligation to perform, by means of assault or intimidation, may be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding 30 million won.

For the client, who had sought a referral to an attorney in Anyang, Daeryun explained the background of how this case had arisen.

The criminal facts that the client admits arose as a result of the complainant's prolonged obsession and harassment.

Before this case occurred, the complainant had exhibited extreme obsession toward the client, to the point that the client found it difficult to carry on with daily life.

The complainant repeatedly made obsessive demands, such as “Do not show interest in other women” and “Why do you not express affection toward me,” and exhibited a manic-depressive pattern, at times expressing affection and at other times expressing extreme anger without reason.

When the client, unable to endure it any longer, attempted to break up, the complainant refused to part each time and went so far as to feign acts of self-harm.

Ultimately, the client, realizing that it was not possible to break up with the complainant through ordinary conversation, came to demand a breakup using the same methods as the complainant.

The criminal facts concerning the intimidation in this case amount to nothing more than the client acting in the same manner as the complainant in order to break up.

The coercion allegation as well arose in the course of the client demanding a breakup with the complainant.

Sensing that the client intended to declare the breakup, the complainant continued to avoid the client and evade the breakup.

Angered by this, the client came to make threats and coercive statements, such as “If you do not come to my home right now, I will cut my wrist just as you did.”