(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.02.28 2017고정572

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) 제주지방법원 2018.02.28 2017고정572

무고

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Basic Facts] around February 2015, the Defendant requested payment of KRW 300 million under the name of the premium if the Defendant Nonparty Nonparty Nonparty wishes to continue to lease in the future through E, a restaurant located in Songpa-gu Seoul building (hereinafter “the instant building”). However, the Defendant Nonparty’s refusal to lease it, and ultimately, the Defendant’s winning in the India lawsuit filed against the Defendant Nonparty Nonparty. At around that time, the Defendant Nonparty Nonparty (hereinafter “the instant building”) operated the F cafeteria only by June 16, 2008 around the instant building.

In the meantime, audit has been established in the Sungwon, and the building owner has been under the name of the court at the request of the premium and has been forced to remove it inevitably.

There was a fact that a banner was posted to the effect that it was “.......”

[2] Around August 16, 2016, the Defendant submitted a letter of claim stating that “Around February 22, 2017, the Seoul Songpa-gu Office of Civil Service of the Dispatch Police Station and the Jeju Dong Police Station located in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and around February 22, 2017, the Defendant requested the Defendant’s tenant to use KRW 300 million as a premium, despite the fact that the Defendant requested the Defendant’s tenant to use it as a premium, the Defendant, on the ground that the banner posted as stated in the above basic facts, was not leased for about six months to the owner of the Seongdong-gu building, and the other room of the building of this case was not leased for the wind, and the remaining Defendant’s tenant, who caused the death of the building of this case, did not demand the premium for the purpose of having the Defendant be subject to criminal punishment.” The Defendant made a statement as the complainant and made a statement as the complainant, and rejected the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. Complaint;

1. Application of the statutes on the photographs of banners;

1. Criminal facts;

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2017고정71

-서울서부지방법원 2016.09.22 2016고정173

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.06.28 2016고단809

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노1317

-서울북부지방법원 2018.05.17 2017노1455