폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the instant facts charged, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that a partnership relationship was terminated between the Defendants and the victim N with respect to the instant real estate development project, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone. Rather, according to each evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the victim’s statement, the lower court agreed with the victims to withdraw from the partnership relationship with the instant real estate development project, after the non-permission disposition was issued on October 1, 201 and around November 11, 201, with respect to the application for permission to collect earth and rocks on the Cheongju City for permission to collect earth and rocks on the Cheongju City. Defendant A and the Defendant C did not have any identical relationship with the victim from the beginning.
Therefore, under different premises, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants were false in a letter of complaint submitted to the Chungcheong branch office of the Chungcheong District Public Prosecutor's Office on January 9, 2014, to the effect that “the Defendants arbitrarily disposed of the property of the Defendant, Defendant A, and Q composed of the victims, Defendant B’s wife in connection with the instant real estate development project.”
2) As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants informed the victim of harm to the effect that the Defendants would cause a disturbance through a provisional disposition or criminal appeal in connection with the instant real estate development project for a long time. Considering the impact of the above provisional disposition, etc. on the victim’s business in the situation where the sales contract for the said real estate was made, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants’ act constitutes a conflict.
3) Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on each of the above facts charged on a different premise, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.