logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.10 2016노1666
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of injury 1, there is no fact that the Defendant was at the time and place indicated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no fact that the victim suffered bodily injury, such as the mouth of the floor, etc. due to the Defendant’s exercise of force. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant inflicted bodily injury upon the victim. 2) In relation to the attack, the Defendant did not in collusion with Co-Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) in order to threaten the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the defendant conspired with B to threaten the victim and received KRW 50 million from the victim under the pretext of agreement is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the trial court on the charge of injury, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant, as stated in this part of the facts charged, had inflicted injury on the victim’s left side part by drinking once with about four weeks of treatment and by cutting the floor of the floor, etc., such as the victim’s eye, as stated in this part of the facts charged, so this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. A) The victim, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, was under drinking together with the Defendant and the J during the period of the instant case, i.e., drinking together with the Defendant at the time of the instant case, she deemed that the Defendant was under drinking with the Defendant and the J, and thereafter, the Defendant was under the influence of his own left part of the Defendant’s own high school, and she defends the Defendant’s assault.

arrow