beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.11.28 2014고단2221

강요등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2014 Highest 221]

1. The Defendant, in violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (hereinafter “Special Cases”), taken the Defendant’s cell phone with the Defendant’s sexual organ located in Goyang-gu D and 101 (E House), from April 2014 to May 2014, using the Defendant’s cell phone with the Defendant’s sexual organ located in Goyang-gu D and 101 (E House).

Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of another person who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a camera, etc. against his will.

2. Around 20:00 on September 5, 2014, the Defendant: (a) 20:00, the Defendant: (b) was fluorily fluorcing customers, i.e., customers, such as I and J, without any reason under the influence of alcohol; and (c) 30 minutes of bits of bitch, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, and fluor, of the instant victim’s fluorcing; and (d) fluoring the said customers.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's singinging business by force.

3. From March 2014, the Defendant forced the victim from around 3, 201, to live in the above E-house 101 where the victim F was the victim by neglecting the lease deposit of KRW 3 million, and around September 4, 2014, the victim talks that the victim would talk to the female in the name of the victim in the future in the future. The victim is a person who has a record of interfering with the victim’s singing business, such as the foregoing paragraph, by threatening the victim to “divating the part of the victim’s clothes to drink the Defendant in the future.”

On September 21, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around Hamno, around 21:00 of the victim’s operation, on the ground that the victim had a real estate monthly contract for the above E-house 101, the Defendant appeared to have taken an attitude that “the victim would have stolen the contract at home and reported it to larceny; (b) 3 million won of the deposit, by means of a letter of waiver.”