beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
Defendant of the Prosecutor.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (1) through misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) did not have prepared a job in collusion with Defendant B in advance for the purpose of receiving money from M and Defendant B, and there was no threat of M in that place.
(B) The instant case reported negative articles on the I Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) ordered by Gwangju City in a local daily newspaper, and Defendant B, a public official in charge of Gwangju City, requested that the Defendant would no longer have any more negative articles, thereby receiving money in the name of advertising expenses from M in order to conduct personnel affairs for the reporters of the local daily newspaper.
Accordingly, M does not pay advertising expenses because it was distributed to the Defendant’s attack, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a crime of extortion.
(2) Even if it is not an unreasonable sentencing decision, the sentence imposed by the court below (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: 10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, and 5 million won of fine) is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the following circumstances are revealed.
The commencement of the investigation into the defendant was the case by informing the defendant of the contents of this case although one of the reporters of Gwangju Viewing access received advertising expenses that the defendant should pay to reporters of the local daily newspapers from J's representative M but did not pay them. Since M paid money to the defendant did not file a complaint with any malicious intent, M's statement in this case is high credibility.