(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.27 2017노6704 | 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) 수원지방법원 2017.12.27 2017노6704

협박

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not state that the victim made a statement as stated in the judgment of the court below with the same contents, and the defendant did not intend to merely make the victim's speech in the process of resisting the victim's desire, but to notify the victim of the harm that may cause fears.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of intimidation of related legal principles, the expression of harm that may cause fear to the general public. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require any intent or desire to actually realize the harm that an actor knows and cites that the offender informss such harm to the extent that it may cause fear. However, if the perpetrator's speech or behavior is merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary decentralization, and it is objectively evident that the offender has no intention of intimidation in light of surrounding circumstances, it shall not be acknowledged that the perpetrator's intent of intimidation or intimidation was objectively evident. However, whether there was an act of intimidation or intent of intimidation of the above meaning should be determined by considering not only the appearance of the act, but also surrounding circumstances, such as the circumstance leading to such act, the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2102, May 10, 191). (b) In light of the legal principles as seen above, the Defendant's act of intimidation and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below constitutes the crime of intimidation of this case.

It is reasonable to view it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① The Defendant purchased from M a building in the Manan-gu Ma in Ansan-gu, Ansan-gu, and the victim had a place of “D” and a place of a flag with “D”, which was operated by M on the first floor of the above building.

(2) The defendants shall build buildings.

참조판례

-대법원 1991. 5. 10. 선고 90도2102 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.18 2017노46

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.02 2017노748

-광주지방법원 2013.09.25 2013노1459

-인천지방법원 2018.03.29 2018노444

-의정부지방법원 2017.04.27 2017노129