beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 남원지원 2014.02.18 2013고단264

공갈

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. Defendant A, from around 2008 to March 201, was engaged in activities as a senior engineer at the center of the former week and the former day from around 2008 to around 201. From around April 201, Defendant A operated online newspaper company “D (E)”, the victim F is the trade name “H” from Namwon city, “J” from Namwon city, and “J” from Namwon city I”, the victim K operates the aggregate extraction business in the trade name of “J” from Namwon city, and the victim K is the managing director of “(N)P”, the aggregate extraction company located in the south city, and the victim Q is the senior executive director of “(NS)S”, the aggregate extraction company located in the south city, and the victim T is a person who operates the aggregate extraction business from Namwon city, the victim T is one who operates the aggregate extraction business in the name of “J” from Namwon city.

1. Crimes against victim F;

A. From around 2011, the Defendant posted a series of articles to the effect that “H and J violated the laws and regulations, such as illegal reclamation of wastes in mountain.” On May to June of the same year, 2012, the Defendant left the Defendant’s newspaper office in order to explain the above articles. Whether there was an objection against the Defendant’s newspaper office. There was a large amount of money for the FF president, and whether there was no such article. If the FF president had been in progress, he did not post a article any more on the part of the Defendant’s company.” However, the Defendant continued to report or report violations of the laws and regulations arising from the victim’s workplace if he did not comply with this, and had been issued to the Defendant’s newspaper office in order to explain the above articles to the Defendant’s office. At that time, Y0 had been issued to the Defendant’s office in YM, which had been operated by the Defendant.”

B. The Defendant posted a phone to the above victim around the time of the prosecution in 2012.

It is time to see why it is long time.