(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.04.14 2015노1719

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.04.14 2015노1719

협박등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On June 2013, the Defendant, at the victim’s office, told the victim’s wife on May 19, 2014, and made a talk about employment by calling for the victim’s wife on May 19, 2014, and only stated that “I wish to die if I would have become aware of employment,” and there was no written intimidation as stated in the facts charged.

In addition, even though the defendant saw the Pet and conducted a single person's demonstration, there was no intention of defamation, and there was no possibility that other person was aware of the content of the PPP as to the victim in light of the content and the circumstances of the demonstration.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant's crime of intimidation and defamation by misunderstanding the facts.

B. In light of the following: (a) the elderly of 70 years of age who is unfair in sentencing; (b) the phrase “to be employed on the recommendation of L only would be employed on the recommendation of the victim”; (c) the victim’s home was required to be employed; (d) the finding of the victim’s home was one time on May 19, 2014; and (e) the primary offender, the sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of suspended sentence in March) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant threatened the victim on three occasions as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, thereby damaging the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out false facts through one person’s demonstration, and that the other person could have been aware of the contents of the diskettes as to the victim. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion

B. The Defendant’s judgment on the wrongful argument of sentencing repeatedly denies the entirety of the crimes by denying the victim’s and his family members who have caused damages, even though they caused damages to the victim’s and their families.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.06.14 2019고정1022

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.05.08 2014고단2415

-서울남부지방법원 2018.02.14 2017고단1873

-대구지방법원 2019.07.26 2018노4876

-대전지방법원 2019.09.26 2019고정363