A fellow teacher said: “You might have to quit your job”… Daebeop: “It's not a threat”

A fellow teacher said: “You might have to quit your job”… Daebeop: “It's not a threat”
Panoramic view of the Supreme Court. yunhap news

The Supreme Court ruled that even if you send a retaliatory text message to a fellow teacher, saying, “You may have to quit your job,” you cannot be punished if the specific harm is not specified.

According to the legal community on the 12th, the Second Division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Sang-hwan Kim) overturned the original trial ruling that convicted Mr.

This incident began with a text message sent by Mr. A to Teacher B in October 2021. Person A told Person B: “I’m also trying to get my personal relationships in order now. Maybe you’re leaving the school you loved. I will pay you for what you did to me. He is accused of sending a text message saying: “I’ll come see you in the lab” and threatening Mr B as if he were at a disadvantage at work.

In the background of this incident, a problem arose when Mr. A introduced a real estate businessman to Mr. B and other fellow teachers. This businessman received 247.05 million won as advance payment from teachers, but it later turned into a criminal case since no real development took place. While suing the businessman, Mr. B and others filed a petition requesting that Mr. A also be severely punished, and Mr. A was sent to trial on fraud charges. However, Mr A was found not guilty in the Supreme Court last March.

However, the prosecution charged Mr. A after determining that he had sent the text message for the purpose of retaliation for spite of filing the petition. In fact, two days after Mr. A sent the text message in question to Mr. B, the businessman reported Mr. B’s corruption, including his misappropriation of research funds, to the university. The first trial court found Mr. A not guilty, but the second trial court recognized Mr. A’s retaliation purpose and sentenced him to one year and six months in prison and three years of probation.

However, the Supreme Court ruled that no crime was established in this case. The Supreme Court said: “It is difficult to know from the content of the text message alone what harm the defendant specifically intends to inflict on the legal interests of the victim,” and that “the defendant is not in a position to disadvantage the interests of the victim.” victim”. status within the university due to the abstract nature of the content.” Considering this, it cannot be easily concluded that the intention of the accused to take unfavorable measures against the victim was implied.”

Furthermore, the Supreme Court said: “There is no objective evidence to recognize that the defendant was involved in informing the victim after sending the text message” and added: “As the defendant claimed, the text message temporarily and impulsively expressed his feelings towards the victim with whom he had had a relationship for a considerable period of time while intoxicated.” “There seems to be a lot of room for it to be understood as something that was expressed,” he added. As a result, the case was referred to the Daejeon High Court and Mr. A’s final legal responsibility is scheduled to be heard once again.

Reporter Yang Da-hoon yangbs@segye.com

[ⓒ 세계일보 & Segye.com, 무단전재 및 재배포 금지]

Read more

India24Live Favicon

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every day.

We don’t spam! Read our [link]privacy policy[/link] for more info.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *