(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.17 2014노2572 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.17 2014노2572

공갈미수등

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (the attempted portion of imprisonment and sexual assault treatment programs) agreed by the victim F to repay an obligation instead of D on behalf of his/her father, and even though the Defendant sent letters to urge the victim to repay his/her obligation and did not threaten the victim, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 40 hours of imprisonment and sexual assault treatment programs are too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, intimidation as a means of a crime of intimidation refers to the threat of harm and injury likely to be frighten to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. Here, the realization of harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it itself is unlawful, and even if the notice of harm and injury is used as a means of realizing the right, the other party was frightly frighted by means of intimidation, and if the method of realizing the right exceeds the permissible level or scope under the social norms, a crime of intimidation is established.

(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) had to pay KRW 29.7 million to the victim F, who was the mother of D, and was paid KRW 13.6 million on April 24, 2014; and (b) received a certificate of loan that the remainder was to be paid until June 15, 2014; (c) the Defendant demanded the victim to pay the remainder as soon as possible; (d) the Defendant demanded the payment of KRW 15 million to the victim; (e) the Defendant did not comply with the demand; and (e) the Defendant did not comply with the demand of the victim to pay the remainder as soon as possible; and (e) the Defendant failed to pay the remainder as possible on May 3, 2014.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 10. 11. 선고 2007도6406 판결

유사 판례

-대법원 2013.12.26 2012도9791

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.18 2015노642

-수원지방법원 2016.12.02 2016노2295

-서울북부지방법원 2012.10.17 2012노646

-대법원 2015.10.29 2014도13615