Gangneung Attorney Referral | Non-Prosecution Decision Despite Complaints on Two Charges, Including Coercion

The client, who resides in Gangneung, operated a small online shopping mall.

The client came into a minor dispute with the complainant, the representative of a business partner, and demanded that the complainant post a public apology on the company's social media account.

When the complainant refused several times, the client sent text messages such as, "If I report you, you will go to prison and your company will immediately go under."

The complainant then filed a criminal complaint against the client on charges including coercion and violation of the Information and Communications Network Act.

1. Coercion

Coercion is an offense committed when a person, through assault or intimidation, obstructs another's exercise of a right or compels another to perform an act that the person has no obligation to perform.

The "act that the person has no obligation to perform" referred to in coercion means compelling another to do something despite the absence of any legal or contractual obligation to do so.

If a person compels another to perform an act that the other was already obligated to perform under law or contract, coercion is not constituted even if assault or intimidation occurs in the process.

2. Network Act

This Act was enacted to promote the use of information and communications networks, to protect the personal information of those who use information and communications services, and to create an environment in which information and communications networks can be used soundly and safely.

Article 44-7 of the Information and Communications Network Act prohibits the distribution of information that repeatedly sends to another person any code, words, sound, images, or video that arouses fear or anxiety.

A violation of this provision may result in imprisonment for up to one year or a fine of up to 10 million won.

The Gangneung attorney argued that the client's conduct was not coercion but a legitimate exercise of a right.

In fact, the complainant had first sent a text message stating, "I would like to visit you in person and apologize."

The Gangneung attorney emphasized that the complainant had voluntarily expressed an intention to apologize and argued that the request for an apology was an exercise of a right rather than coercion.

The complainant claimed that the client had sent text messages several times for the purpose of creating anxiety.

However, most of the text messages the client sent were exchanged in the course of resolving the incident and reaching a settlement.

The Gangneung attorney emphasized that the client had sent the text messages for legitimate reasons and argued that this was not conduct that created anxiety.