logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.09.13 2018노467
공갈미수
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that the Defendant resisted to the other party, who was trying to depart from the road without drinking alcohol and returning home, and the vehicle and the accident of contact occurred and went away from the site as they are.

There is no fact that the defendant has caused an accident by intentionally facing his body on the vehicle or by threatening him to take advantage of his body.

2. On December 7, 2016, around 00:45, the Defendant: (a) reported the victim D (n, 34 years old)-on-hand car driving at the victim D (n, 34 years old) who stops on a road in front of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; and (b) did not have any actual traffic accident, and (c) took the victim’s bath to the victim as if he suffered a traffic accident, and “I will escape from the victim’s escape,” regardless of the fact that the Defendant intentionally d(n, 34 years old) was faced with the

It will be reported as an escape vehicle.

In the event that the injured person does not deal with the insurance, he/she would be subject to punishment for the main reason that the injured person does not deal with the insurance.

Although the victim tried to take money from the victim of intimidation, the victim was not able to report to the police, but failed to do so.

3. According to the statement of the Defendant, the driver D, and the driver D and the driver D and CCTV and CCTV images, the victim’s vehicle was stopped in a reverse direction near India. The Defendant, in India, led to the direction of the vehicle by leaving the vehicle on the left side of the vehicle, followed by the course of the vehicle, and the movement of the vehicle by getting into operation, conflicts with the body on the back of the left side of the vehicle, and the Defendant driving away the vehicle without knowing the shock.

It is recognized that the police officer called as stated in the facts charged, and that the police officer called to say that he/she should go to the police station at the site when he/she completes the insurance contract.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the above circumstances alone alone lead to the defendant to intentionally face the body of the vehicle or to take money.

arrow