beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.28 2019노4150

특수협박

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 merely operated a vehicle in accordance with the vehicle stop signals, but did not have tried to threaten the victim by using the vehicle. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by erroneous recognition of the facts and sentenced the Defendant guilty. 2) The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (hereinafter “fine 3 million won”) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s above sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the protocol of examination of the suspect's interrogation of the defendant who led to a confession of a sudden stop, etc., the defendant, who led to a three-lane change, changed the course from the victim's driver's vehicle to the first lane while entering the future of the victim's driver's vehicle in the second lane. As the victim's vehicle rapidly changed from the first lane changed to the first lane, he again changed the course from the front side of the defendant's driver's vehicle again, and the victim's vehicle rapidly changed to the second lane was driving, and it was recognized that the vehicle was rapidly operated from the front side of the vehicle of the defendant's driver's vehicle, and even if there was considerable time to stop the vehicle from the Defendant's driving lane, the defendant's sudden operation, the driving method of the defendant's vehicle, and the degree of the risk of accident, etc. can sufficiently be recognized as threatening the victim's intent using the vehicle.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the first instance court on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendant and the prosecutor, and where the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion

Supreme Court on July 23, 2015