2015 Highest 1915 Highest 1915 Highest Assault, Violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a group;

(Special Intimidation to Registered Crime)

A person shall be appointed.

Dog-Appellee (prosecutions) and Magden (Public Trial)

Attorney Cho Jin-jin (Korean National Assembly Line)

October 30, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Facts of crime

【Criminal Records】

On July 9, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint intimidation) at the Seoul Southern District Court on July 9, 2015, and the said judgment was finalized on July 17, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Special intimidation;

On June 11, 2015: around 59, the Defendant carried the victim B (the victim of 42 years of age), who is a passenger, in the distribution bridge of Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, and * ** * * * * * * When the victim was operating a taxi, the Defendant changed the vehicle rapidly and rapidly with the vehicle at a rapid speed and changed the vehicle in front of another vehicle while continuing to drive the vehicle at a rapid speed, reduced the speed by cutting down the distance from the vehicle and continuously reducing the speed of the vehicle, while the victim was driving the vehicle at a full speed and did not reach the destination, but put up a dangerous vehicle on the side of the road.

Accordingly, the defendant carried the above vehicle, which is a dangerous object, and stuffed another vehicle, as it might cause a traffic accident, and made intimidation to the victim by showing the attitude of causing any harm to the victim's life or body.

2. Violence;

On June 11, 2015: around 00, the Defendant: (a) stopped the taxi when the victim demanded the safe driving; and (b) assaulted the victim by getting the victim to suffer from the defect in order to verify the information of the Defendant’s taxi license, on the road of the distribution belt in Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

On June 11, 2015: Around 13, 2015, the Defendant continued to assault the victim by cutting the victim's trees in excess of the body of the victim after the victim again tried to verify the information of the taxi driver's license at the same place.

3.False appeal:

On June 11, 2015: at around 07:05, the Defendant stated that C of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station and the office of the Yongsan Police Station and the Seoul Yongsan Police Station stated that B was subject to punishment because B was able to commit an assault while driving a taxi on the part of the distribution bridge, and that B was punished as a driver assault, and that B was subject to an assault during driving on the part of the driver at the Seoul Yongsan Police Station and the office of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station and the above 11th day on the same day.

However, in fact, the Defendant reported the aforementioned false facts to the police officer who was dispatched after receiving the defective report due to the climatic driving from the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have been assaulted by B while driving a taxi, and rather did not intend to bring B into the taxi, and the Defendant reported it to the police officer who was dispatched after receiving the defective report due to the climatic driving from B.

As a result, the defendant reported false facts to police officers B.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement [as to paragraph (1) of the judgment, part of the defendant's legal statement];

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The written statement of the defendant;

1. A criminal investigation report (a report on counter-verification by a police officer dispatched to the scene);

1. Blue boxes, video CDs, investigation reports (reports on the confirmation of blue images), investigation reports (reports on the dispatch of the site police officers' counter-verifications), and recording records;

[The Defendant asserts that, as to paragraph (1) of the holding, the taxi was driven rapidly at the victim's request, and that there was no intention of intimidation. However, according to each evidence of the holding, such as black boxes and video CDs and tape-recordings, the Defendant may sufficiently recognize that there was an intention of intimidation at the time of intimidation. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant is rejected.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the defendant is also driving the above taxi, and if a traffic accident occurs, the defendant would also inflict an injury on the defendant. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate that the defendant carried the above taxi, which is a dangerous object, and the defendant's act of threatening the victim. However, if a traffic accident occurs due to a sudden change of the lane, such as excessive speed and rapid change of the lane, it may cause serious injury to the passengers. In particular, in light of the fact that the defendant raised a distance after the rapid change of the vehicle vehicle after the rapid change of the vehicle, and that the defendant reduced the speed rapidly after the rapid change of the vehicle, the victim was actually faced with the sudden driving as set forth in the defendant's reasoning, and the victim was actually at the back seat, regardless of the fact that the driver, who is the driver of the above taxi, actually suffered an injury, the defendant's act of causing danger to the above taxi constitutes "the act of carrying dangerous objects in special intimidation," and therefore, the above defendant's assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 284 of the Criminal Act, Article 283(1)(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1)(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 284 of the Criminal Act, Article 283(1)(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 156(a) of the Criminal Act

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 157, 153, and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (with respect to Non- Accusation)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Reasons for Sentencing) of the Criminal Act

○ 1 Crime (Assault)

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 4 (Habitual, Cumulative Offense, Special Intimidation) basic area (from 6 months to 1 year and 6 months) of the Act (no special person)

○ 2 Crime (False Accusation)

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (General Dismissal) (one month to one year)

【Confession of Special Mitigation】 Confession of Self-denunciation

○ 3 Crimes of Violence (Assault)

[Extent of Recommendation] Class 1 (General Violence) > The basic area of the Act on the Protection, Protection, and Protection, and Protection, etc. of Victims

【No Special Convicted Person】

○ The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: from June to March 10, 200

The crime of this case by the sentence of ○ is committed by a person who threatens the victim, who is a taxi passenger due to scambling, and assaults the victim who resists the crime, and the victim was assaulted by the victim. The nature of the crime is not good. The defendant has a majority of criminal records of the same kind, such as assaulting passengers and indecent act by force, etc. while driving a taxi, and the defendant is under trial on the fact that he acted by organizing the "red red wave" in relation to the previous criminal records of this case, it is inevitable to sentence in light of the fact that he again went to the crime of this case.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the following facts: (a) the fact that one's mistake is recognized with respect to a crime other than the crime under paragraph (1) of the judgment; and (b) the equality with the case where the judgment is to be rendered simultaneously with the

Judge B/Reward and decoration -