logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.02.13 2013고단4673
공갈
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from January 21, 2013 to March 31, 2013, worked as an employee of “Co. E” of the victim’s “Co., Ltd.” in Gwangju North Korea-gu, and was in charge of the site director of the “F” interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior decoration, which was going at the Masan city in Masan-si, and was under several times from the victim’s unauthorized removal from the site and supervision neglect, and did not work from April 1, 2013.

On April 1, 2013, the Defendant received money from the victim by taking advantage of the fact that “the victim’s company reports to the Fair Trade Commission in collusion with the Corporation may in itself be at a disadvantage.”

On April 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) demanded on April 2, 2013, using a Handphone in the Gwangju Metropolitan City Mine-gu, that “the performance fee was made to reduce the construction cost because the victim made efforts to reduce the construction cost” using the Handphone; (b) however, the victim appeared to have negative reaction; and (c) the victim was transferred from the victim to his new bank account on April 13:07, 2013, around February 2:1, 2015, when the distribution was made to the new world and lot cooperation company prior to the towing, the company was suffering from collusion, and there was difficulty in withdrawing and withdrawing from the company involved in the same as the fair trade accusation, withdrawal, penalty surcharge, and penalty surcharge.”

On May 14, 2013, at around 10:50, the Defendant continued to use a Handphone to “one month” with the victim’s handphone. The Defendant presented a text note stating that “I think 10% (30 million won with the total construction cost) of the former performance rate of 10%,” but did not receive the said money from the victim, the Defendant again sent the victim’s handphone on May 16, 2013.

arrow