협박의 심리적 강제 효과

Abstract

Threatening refers to ‘notice of the harm to be done if not done according to the instructions’. Threatening is a means of violating freedom of decision or freedom of action. The key to threatening is to act by forcing the actor to make certain decisions or not to act according to the doctor by notifying the evil. In order to have the effect of psychologically compelling the other person to make certain decisions, the content of the evil must have a level of fear. It is the position of the majority to see that in order for threatening to be established, the other party must have a result that actually causes fear. Minority theory believes that the content of harm should be objectively enough to cause fear. The precedent is the same as the minority theory. At present, there is currently no means to measure the victim's actual fear at the time of the act because of the actor's notice of harm. Therefore, there is no way to prove whether fear was actually triggered at the time of the act. In the end, the proof is bound to judge whether the content of the evil was objectively enough to cause fear. In that respect, the minority theory is valid. To determine how much harm causes a person to feel fear, knowledge of the laws of experience is necessary. It is clear that fear is caused by notifying the harm to the body by trying to stab it with a knife or by noticing the damage to the body by not letting the organized violence ship stand still. The conclusion is also clear if you have a picture of a secret part of your body and you want to spread it, and you're notified of the harm to your honor, or you're going to be told a tax investigation to make the business ruin. This is when fear is clearly triggered. It is common for the notice of harm to be made explicitly through language. However, it is also possible to make the other party know the contents of the harm themselves without specifying the contents of the harm. Cases also acknowledge this implied notice of harm. In the case of an implicit form of threatening harassment, it is much rarer than in the case of explicit harassment. This is the case, but the content of the harm is not specified, and there is controversy over what it is. The question is whether the content of such unclear harm is enough to cause fear. In the days of former President Park Geun-hye, the Blue House created a blacklist of culture and arts and implemented a policy to exclude support for them. In the process, three civil servants from the Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism showed a passive attitude toward the implementation of this policy. The Blue House asked the Minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism to resign them. He also requested that the President of the Sports Department, who handled the complaints related to the horseback riding association of Choi Soon-sil, the closest president of the President, and did not resolve them as desired, and resigned. As such, the content of the request was clear, but it was not explicitly indicated what harm would be done if it were not fulfilled. A majority of the Supreme Court's opinions on the case concluded that there was no implied notice of harm that could have caused fear. On the other hand, a minority opinion of the Supreme Court stated that the contents of the harm were inspiring fear based on the following points. ① The head of the sports department had already experienced the relegation of censure, ② the demand for resignation was higher than that of the minister, that is, in fact, demanding the resignation of the Blue House, ③ the request for resignation was directed by the president The reason is that the party already knew the fact. The fact that the Blue House in Korea is a state agency with strong power is a fact that any member of society acknowledges. It is also a common rule of thumb that when you disobey the Blue House, you suffer a very painful disadvantage. Therefore, even if the Blue House did not explicitly report the harm, everyone knows that if they do not follow the Blue House's demands, there will be a strong disadvantage. In this respect, it is reasonable to accept the minority opinion that the Blue House's apocalyptic harm is high enough to cause fear.