협박
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Based on the grounds of appeal, the Defendant argues that the punishment (the first instance court’s judgment: the fine of KRW 1.5 million; the imprisonment of June, the suspended sentence of execution; the imprisonment of two years; the probation of the third court’s judgment; the fine of KRW 1 million) of the lower judgment is unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.
Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant, this Court decided to hold a joint hearing of each appeal case against the judgment of the court below. The court below's conviction against the defendant is all concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence should be imposed within the scope of the term of punishment where the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes is aggravated in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows.
Criminal facts
The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime
1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act to increase concurrent crimes;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The crime of this case under the two types of punishment under Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act is not sufficient to commit the crime of this case, where the defendant threatened the victim, reported it again, and thereby obstructing the bar business of the victim, and even if the defendant was punished several times for the same or similar criminal acts, the crime of this case is again committed.