(영문) 광주고등법원 2015.10.08 2015노265 | 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) 광주고등법원 2015.10.08 2015노265

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복협박등)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the victim C violated the prohibition of access by the defendant and reported it to the police, and that the defendant made the victim C and C fighting with the victim "I would like to find out why it would be difficult," and there was no fact that the defendant threatened the victim C with the purpose of retaliationing the victim C.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the trial court regarding the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim C who made a statement in connection with the investigation of the criminal case against the Defendant is sufficiently recognized on January 19, 2015, as stated in the facts charged against the victim C and the Muju on January 19, 2015. Furthermore, the prohibition of access is the same as bit of bitbit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a victim

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. ex officio determination of sentencing ex officio: (a) there are circumstances in which the victim C appears to have made a report to the police on the reason that the victim C violated the prohibition of access; (b) it appears that the victim C would have made the same intimidation as the facts charged; and (c) it appears that the Defendant had sufficiently reflected the mistake while living in prison for eight months in the instant case; and (d) other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the background of the instant crime, the circumstances after the instant crime, etc. are considered comprehensively.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.04.17 2015고합27

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2017.11.17 2017고단499

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노2182

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2019.06.19 2019노79

-부산지방법원 2014.04.11 2013노3666