Non-Prosecution in an Attempted Intimidation Case Involving an Online Community Comment

Client Information

Individual / Suspect
 

Case Details

The client was serving as a social service worker in Korea when he came across an online community post criticizing a particular political figure. In response to the post, he left a comment using strong and emotionally charged language.

Shortly after posting the comment, the client realized that the wording had gone too far and voluntarily deleted it. However, the post had already been reported as a potentially threatening statement.

The client was investigated on suspicion of attempted intimidation and retained DECENT Law Firm during the police investigation. The police later referred the case to the prosecution.

The alleged offense was attempted intimidation under Article 283 of the Korean Criminal Act, in conjunction with Article 286 on attempted crimes.

DECENT Law Firm developed its defense strategy from the early police investigation stage, focusing on the key legal elements of intimidation under Korean criminal law. A written legal opinion was submitted to the investigative authorities.

▪️Whether the Comment Constituted a Specific Notice of Harm

DECENT argued that the client’s comment was closer to an emotional expression made in the moment, in response to an online community post, rather than a specific notice of harm.

Under Korean Supreme Court precedent, intimidation requires a notice of harm that is generally sufficient to cause fear in an ordinary person. DECENT explained, with reference to Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606 rendered on September 28, 2007, that the comment did not meet this threshold.


▪️Lack of Intent to Intimidate

DECENT also emphasized that the client deleted the comment shortly after posting it. In addition, given the nature of the online platform, it was unlikely that the alleged victim would actually come across the comment.

These circumstances were presented with supporting materials to show that the client did not intend to intimidate the alleged victim.


▪️Lack of Realistic Possibility of Execution

DECENT further explained that the client was serving as a social service worker at the time, meaning his movement and daily activities were subject to practical restrictions.

Based on these circumstances, DECENT argued that the comment was not a realistic or concrete threat, but rather an impulsive and emotional online expression.