beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.5.8.선고 2015고단377 판결

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습협박),폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단·흉기등협박),폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단·흉기등재물손괴등),업무방해

Cases

2015 Highest 377 Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intimidation), and violence

Violation of the above Punishment Act (Intimidation against groups, deadly weapons, etc.), violence

Violation of the Punishment of Acts, etc. Act (Destruction of a group or deadly weapon)

(iii) interference with business,

Defendant

A

Prosecutor

Lee Dong-dong (Court of Second Instance), Lee Jin-chul (Court of Second Instance)

Defense Counsel

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

Imposition of Judgment

2015,5.8

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. Criminal records (Habitualness of violence and repeated crime);

On February 21, 2002, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Government's branch of the Seoul District Court on February 21, 2002, and was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment or 2 years of suspended sentence for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at the Government District Court on August 27, 2004, and was sentenced to 30,000 won of fine by the same court on February 11, 2008, and was sentenced to 300,000 won of fine by the same court on June 4, 2008. The Defendant was sentenced to 1 year and 6 months of suspended sentence for a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. at the same court on June 7, 2013, and was sentenced to 250,000 won of fine by the same court on June 10, 2014.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective threat, a deadly weapon, etc.), and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of a group, a deadly weapon, etc.).

On January 26, 2015, the Defendant demanded the victim E (the 55-year old-old) (the 55-year-old), who is the owner of the business, to bring 50,000 won at one hour at one hour at one time at one-time from the "D main store located in Speaker C". However, the Defendant’s refusal of the request, stating that the victim’s refusal of the request, “I will be safe from today’s business.” On the ground that the victim’s refusal of the request, the Defendant made a deposit at one time at one-time-time level (the height is 10 centimeters, the diameter is 5 centimeters) on the loans for tree cutting (the height is 10 centimeters, the diameter is 5 centimeters). The Defendant carried a dangerous object on the floor, carried a cryp (the height is 40 centimeters, the width is 30 centimeters) on the floor, thereby damaging the victim’s property and habitually damaging the market value. In the process, the Defendant, who was a dangerous object, destroyed the victim’s property.

3. Interference with business;

At the time, at the time, in the place under the preceding paragraph, the Defendant: (a) divided the victim E on the ground that he refused the request of the Defendant; (b) cut the name of a customer on a wooden loan account; (c) laid the me new plate and account book; (d) laid the wooden sculpture on the floor; and (e) obstructed the victim’s singinging business for about 30 minutes by force by preventing customers from entering the said singing place by stopping the disturbance, such as smoking the cigarette, and smoking the cigarette.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. All on-site photographs, CCTV photographs, and dangerous objects photographs;

1. Attachment of USB screen pictures;

1. Investigation report (related to dangerous articles used by a suspect);

1. Previous convictions indicated in the judgment: Criminal history records and investigation reports (verification of the date of release related to a suspect's case); Habituality of the judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes recognizing dampness in light of the records of each crime, method of crime, and the same type of crime repeated several times;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 283(1)1 of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 366 of the Criminal Act; Article 314(1)1 of the Criminal Act (a) of the Criminal Act;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and the proviso to Article 42 of the Criminal Act (excluding interference with business)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, the proviso of Article 38(1)2, Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime at the time when one month has not passed since the execution of the instant punishment was completed despite the fact that the Defendant had a significant record of committing the instant crime; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime by using dangerous articles; (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime by failing to reach an agreement with the victim and the amount of damage.

The favorable circumstances of ○: The defendant recognized most of the crimes of this case and reflected.

The age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the defendant, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., and other factors of sentencing under each subparagraph of Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges

Judges President and the Financial Resources