Drunk man threatens with pipe over 'blocking the way'... Special intimidation charge applies even without causing fear

Blocking Vehicle While Drunk, Threatening with Aluminum Pipe and Insults
Victim "Not Afraid of Pipe, Just Surprised" - Acquitted of Special Threat Charges in 2nd Trial
Supreme Court: Special Threat Can Be Established Even if Victim Feels No Fear or Only Briefly

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul / Photo by Moon Honam munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that even a brief act that does not cause fear to the victim can constitute the crime of special intimidation.

On the 24th, the Supreme Court's 2nd Division (Presiding Justice Park Sangok) overturned the lower court's ruling that acquitted Mr. A of special intimidation charges in his appeal trial for charges including drunk driving and special intimidation, and sent the case back to Changwon District Court. The court judged that Mr. A's actions at the time of the crime were sufficient to instill fear in the other party.

In April 2019, Mr. A was prosecuted for threatening by carrying a dangerous object, pulling out an aluminum pipe from his vehicle and dragging it on the ground while cursing, saying, "X XXdeul jangnan china!" because the vehicle driven by Mr. B blocked his way.

At the time, Mr. A was driving under the influence with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.176%, and he did not even have a driver's license due to two previous drunk driving offenses.

The first trial found Mr. A guilty of all charges and sentenced him to 10 months in prison. The court pointed out, "He committed drunk driving again six months after being sentenced to probation for drunk driving, his blood alcohol concentration was high, and he threatened the other party's group with a dangerous object, the pipe, which makes the crime very serious."

On the other hand, the second trial judged that Mr. A's behavior was merely simple cursing or a temporary expression of anger, and Mr. B, who appeared as a witness in the first trial, testified that "I was not scared because of the pipe, but I was embarrassed and surprised," acquitting him of the special intimidation charge. The sentence was reduced to 10 months in prison with a two-year probation.

However, the Supreme Court pointed out the lower court's acquittal on the special intimidation charge and ordered a retrial and judgment. The court stated, "The crime of intimidation is established by the threatening nature of the act itself, regardless of whether the other party actually felt fear," and "Even if the time Mr. A dragged the pipe on the ground while approaching was short, it is recognized as an act sufficient to cause fear."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.