Looking at the Requirements for Public Intimidation... A Post Made 'in a Fit of Rage' Leads to a Police Investigation…

So-called 'public intimidation' posts—threatening to inflict harm on an unspecified multitude while relying on anonymity—are incessant online. The forms are also very diverse, ranging from foreshadowing a knife rampage at a specific subway station with heavy foot traffic, to death threats aimed at consumers of a specific brand out of dissatisfaction with a recently surfaced corporate controversy.

It is too much to dismiss such acts as a momentary outburst of anger or a prank, as the legal repercussions they cause are by no means light. One must be mindful that a moment's impulse can lead to serious, irreversible judicial risk.

Posting crime-foreshadowing messages aimed at an unspecified multitude in online space is highly likely to constitute the crime of intimidation under Article 283 of the Criminal Act. If the charge is recognized, one may face imprisonment of up to 3 years or a fine of up to 5 million won. Suspects who are caught usually plead, "I had no intention of actually inflicting harm; I just wrote it in a fit of rage."

However, it is difficult for such internal intent to be a complete ground for exemption. According to Supreme Court precedent, if the notice of harm is sufficient to instill fear in an ordinary person, the crime of intimidation is established. In other words, regardless of the intent to carry it out or whether an actual crime occurs, the threatening nature that the post itself possesses is sufficient to result in heavy punishment such as a prison term.

Furthermore, such public intimidation inevitably causes a massive waste of public power, such as police force. This is because 112 emergency reports due to citizens' anxiety, cyber investigations to identify the person, and on-site dispatches all take place simultaneously. This is assessed as obstructing the legitimate execution of duties by state agencies through a false notice of harm.

Accordingly, if the crime of obstruction of official duties by deceptive means under Article 137 of the Criminal Act is additionally applied, a much heavier criminal liability follows—imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to 10 million won. In particular, recently, apart from criminal punishment, there is an increasing number of cases in which the state claims civil damages against the suspect for dispatch costs and the like, so caution is required.

Recently, investigative agencies and courts tend to handle this strictly, considering that foreshadowing a heinous crime aimed at an unspecified multitude threatens citizens' peaceful daily lives and causes serious social confusion. Therefore, if you have received contact from the police cyber investigation unit or the like, the response in the early investigation stage becomes the key watershed determining whether you are detained. Hastily deleting the post or withdrawing your account out of fear can instead be interpreted by the investigative agency as a concern about destruction of evidence, and can become a decisive reason for the issuance of a detention warrant. Vaguely and emotionally pleading only for leniency by saying 'it was a joke' makes it difficult to avoid a prison sentence.

Attorney Yoon Jung-hyun of Daeryun LLC said, "In conclusion, foreshadowing a heinous crime online is regarded as a criminal act that threatens the safety of society as a whole, beyond the scope of a simple emotional outburst or expression of opinion. If you are unexpectedly facing a police investigation on related charges, you must be sure to seek the assistance of an attorney with abundant practical experience in criminal cases before making rash statements on your own," adding, "The only realistic solution to prevent detention and minimize the sentence and the scale of damages is to accompany an attorney from the early police investigation stage, demonstrate through objective circumstantial evidence that there was no specific criminal plan, and meticulously organize factors favorable to sentencing, such as whether one voluntarily appeared."

[Read the full article]
Looking at the Requirements for Public Intimidation... A Post Made 'in a Fit of Rage' Leads to a Police Investigation… (Go)