폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습협박)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the overall sentencing conditions of this case, the lower court’s imprisonment (10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor (legal scenarios and unreasonable sentencing) (1) Even if sufficient recognition was made on the part of the defendant at the time of the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habituality, thereby acquitted this part of the facts charged.
② In light of all of the sentencing conditions in the instant case, the lower court’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. In the judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, habitual crimes refer to any mistake of a criminal offender and the tendency of a crime, which do not constitute the nature of the act, and they refer to the nature that constitutes the character of the offender. As such, whether habitual crimes are habitually committed under Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character, occupation, environment, details of the crime, motive, means, method and place of the crime, interval with the previous crime, and similarity with the contents of the crime
(1) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s act of intimidation is deemed as having repeatedly threatened with the victim by exercising force against the victim from December 21, 2012 to January 6, 2013. However, even though it is recognized that it is easy to access the victim by using a daily means of communication such as text message or voice message, it is insufficient to recognize habituality solely because the number of times is somewhat high, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant’s act of intimidation was the cause of a habitive disorder.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is just, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles.