beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.04.12 2017고정1216

특수협박

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 20, 2017, the Defendant, at the E plant located in 09:09, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, D apartment 104 dong 416, considered the victim F and parts supply, who had talked with the victim, that “the victim of this pair of gue” was the victim.

The Defendant expressed his motive to the victim, “I am her age,” and expressed his motive to the victim, “I am her age, I am her body,” and threatened the victim with a pressure-free fluor (fin 10cm wide, 9cm high, 1.6cm weight, 1.6cm high), which is a dangerous object that had been located there, in his hand.

2. On May 8, 2017, at around 08:26 around 08:26, the Defendant became aware of the fact that the E office as described in paragraph (1) was between the parties who are not the business partners ordered by the victim G and the other business partners who are not the business partners who are not the business partners ordered by the victim G.

During the process of a dispute, the Defendant heard the victim’s words “I Y, Y, and Woman in large interest,” and threatened the victim with the victim with “I am “I am kick, I am kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn k

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Results of verification of video recording (USB) conducted by this Court;

1. Investigation reports (on-site and CCTV investigations);

1. The crime of intimidation is not established on the ground that the Defendant and his defense counsel did not report any harm or harm on the part of the Defendant, while having a dispute with the victim about the crime No. 2.

The argument is asserted.

In relation to this, the notice of harm and injury in the crime of intimidation is not only based on the language, but also by the movement (see Supreme Court Decision 74Do2727, Oct. 7, 1975). The result of the verification of CCTV images recorded at the time of the crime of this case is as follows.