특수협박
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of two million won.
Defendant
A.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. There is no mistake of fact that the Defendants threatened the victim.
B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 300,000) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts states that ① the victim stated that he had threatened himself as stated in the facts of the crime in a relatively concrete and consistent manner, ② the victim asked the employees of the restaurant immediately after the occurrence of the instant case to testify on the instant case, and sent mobile phone text messages to the defendant A to the effect that he would resist the instant crime, ③ the operator of the instant restaurant and the employees G, who are the operator of F and employees of the instant restaurant, made a statement to the effect that he had the sound disputing the Defendants and the victim at the time of the instant occurrence, and the above F made a statement that he had the possibility that he had the victim's desire, etc. at the time of the instant occurrence, and ④ the victim refused the request of the defendants concerning the request for auction by the victim at the time of the instant occurrence. In full view of the fact that the Defendants could have threatened the victim, the court held that the Defendants conspired to threaten the victim as stated in the judgment.
In light of the records of this case, a thorough examination of the above judgment by the court below is justified, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts.
The Defendants’ assertion of mistake is without merit.
B. Although Defendant A’s criminal liability for the instant crime is deemed not to be minor, such as threatening the victim by holding a dangerous article in collusion, etc., on the ground that Defendant A’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing was rendered, the victim was agreed upon by the victim at the same time in the trial.