(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.03.16 2016노1773

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.03.16 2016노1773

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding the fact that Defendant A received damages from the victim H with sexual intercourse with wife G, and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime, and Defendant A introduced J to the victim M, and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime, and Defendant C did not have any fact to see the Meptian.

(2) The instant case was prosecuted by misapprehending the legal doctrine by violating land jurisdiction.

(3) The sentence of the lower court (a 3 years of imprisonment, an additional collection of 600,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of the facts by Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was committed only by G and the victim H upon Defendant A’s request, and there was no conspiracy to commit a crime. Defendant B received phone from the J and asked K to call for the M and request to do so on behalf of K, and there was no conspiracy to commit a crime.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (a year of imprisonment, an additional collection of KRW 200,00) is too unreasonable.

(c)

(1) The prosecutor (the Defendants were to purchase the Mept Meptians from V.

(2) Improper sentencing of the lower court’s punishment against Defendant A is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendants committed an act of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. against the Victims A (joint conflict) by the lower court. On May 2014, 201, the Defendants: (a) the Defendant was the Defendant’s wife; (b) the victim H was a middle school teacher; (c) G and the victim H was a middle school teacher at G high school; (d) the victim H entered the her motherel; (c) the Defendant called “Shoeh” to the Defendant; and (d) the Defendants informed the Defendant that he would be able to be accommodated in the her part of the room administered by G and the victim H; and (c) the Defendants were waiting to be accommodated in the side of the room administered by G and the victim H; and (d) the victim H was reported to the victim H as a crime of adulterying the victim H’s pl’s bridge breath.

The victim H received contact information from the victim H, and

참조조문

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.04.20 2017노92

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.14 2016노5393

-서울고등법원 2017.07.05 2017노721

-수원지방법원 2018.06.21 2018노2082

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.25 2017노4321