Blog, Case Study, Criminal

Have you received a criminal accusation for intimidation?

If you’re reading this, you or someone close to you may have received a criminal accusation for intimidation (협박죄) and need help. Do any of these situations apply to you?

• Facing police investigation after receiving a criminal accusation
• Worried about making self-incriminating statements during investigation
• Had no intention to threaten and want to explain your side properly
• Want to avoid criminal punishment at all costs

If you’re a foreign national, your concerns may be even greater. A criminal record could affect not only your reputation but also your visa status, potentially jeopardizing the academic or career achievements you’ve built in Korea.

Take five minutes to read this article – you might find a way to avoid unjust punishment.

Requirements and Penalties for Criminal Threats

As you can see, the law itself is brief, and its interpretation has been developed through case laws. According to the Supreme Court, criminal intimidation requires:

• An evaluation of the relationship between parties
• The circumstances at the time
• The degree of familiarity between parties
• Their relative positions
• When third parties are involved, the relationship between all parties involved

While this might sound complex, it essentially means threatening someone in a way that would reasonably cause fear. Notably, the victim’s actual fear is not required for the crime to be established.

Let’s look at real cases that have been decided by Korean courts.

Real Cases

Case 1: An apartment resident told a security guard “I will get you fired”, despite having no actual authority to do so. (Ulsan District Court 2021Godan2845)

Case 2: A police officer, on behalf of a friend, told the investment recipient that he would “report to higher authorities” if an investment wasn’t returned. (Supreme Court 2007Do606)

Case 3: An embezzling executive notified their company about plans to report internal misconduct to the Financial Supervisory Service (금융감독원). (Supreme Court 2010Do1017)

Case 4:  An Air Force sergeant presented his superior with a document of his misconduct and told him that if he did not admit to verbally abusing him, he would submit the document to his superiors. (Supreme Court 2008Do8922)

Case 5: Employees told their CEO they would inform investors about poor management unless he resigned. (Supreme Court 2022Do9187)

Does your situation resemble any of these cases? You might be wondering which cases resulted in conviction.

Surprisingly, all cases except the last one resulted in guilty verdicts. Even the last case was initially ruled guilty in both the first and second trials but was overturned in the Supreme Court – a case that we SLG successfully defended. 

And by reviewing the court’s criteria for judgment, we can see how the following legal principles are being applied:

Lacking actual authority or influence does not prevent conviction if actions create the perception of such influence (e.g. Case 1. the security guard case).

Victim testimony of no fear is not sufficient for acquittal if the act would ordinarily induce fear (e.g. Case 2. police demand for investment return).

Even legal actions conveyed as a threat (like reporting to authorities) can be criminal.

Confusing, right? A lack of authority doesn’t matter; victim fear isn’t necessary, and even lawful warnings sometimes may count as threats. 

For foreigners, these nuanced standards can be particularly challenging to navigate. What might be considered normal negotiation in your home country could be viewed as criminal intimidation in Korea.

If you had received a guilty verdict in the first or second trial, we can only imagine how overwhelming it must have felt. So, how did SLG persuade the Supreme Court?

Supreme Court Upholds SLG’s Argument

We thoroughly researched favorable precedents, not only from Korean courts but also from German Imperial Court cases that influenced Korean law. While citing precedents is basic legal work, not all lawyers perform this fundamental task equally well.

At the Supreme Court level, the key isn’t finding new facts but identifying errors in legal interpretation from previous trials. Strategic use of precedents is crucial for success.

We proved why our client’s actions constituted warnings rather than threats by effectively utilizing evidence from lower courts: 

1. We demonstrated that the company’s investors were already planning to recover their investment regardless of our client’s actions 
2. We showed that our clients were immediately fired by their CEO (the victim) after delivering the letter, proving they had no real influence 
3. We identified translation errors in the original English document that had been misinterpreted as threats 

Let us share the resulting Supreme Court ruling.

The Supreme Court ultimately recognized our clients’ actions for what they were: a legitimate, collective effort to restore proper business operations. The Court acknowledged that reporting wage violations and informing stakeholders were natural, expected procedures – simply warnings of foreseeable consequences rather than threats.

Key Steps for Responding to Intimidation Allegations. 

Let’s explore the right approach to help your case unfold more smoothly.

First, early response is of utmost importance. 

Consult with an attorney before any police questioning. Your initial statements can have far more significant implications than you might expect. Avoid trying to resolve the issue alone or attempting to negotiate directly with the complainant. Such actions could worsen your situation.

Second, document the legitimacy of your actions. Simply claiming innocence isn’t enough- you need to gather evidence demonstrating lack of threatening intent. This might include witness statements, recordings, or objective documentation of the other party’s responses.

Third, utilize expert assistance. For foreigners especially, consequences can extend beyond criminal penalties to visa status and immigration records. Attorneys do more than interpret laws – they provide comprehensive strategies considering all aspects of your situation. Early professional guidance can help avoid unnecessary risks.

And here is the final tip: Criminal intimidation cases often involve subjective interpretations even among the same language users. So finding attorneys with strong English proficiency and communication skills is essential, particularly for intimidation cases. 

For further information, please refer to the articles below.

If you wonder how English speaking lawyers can be the make-or-break factor in your Korean legal battle, click this: 

SUCCESS CASE: Are English Speaking Lawyers The Make-or-Break Factor in Your Korean Legal Battle?

For more legal knowledge about intimidation in Korea, click this:

Intimidation in Korea | What Is It? How To Deal With It and More!