logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.03.25 2019고단2009
협박등
Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[209 Highest 2009] (Defendant A) around 17:10 on June 1, 2019, the Defendant threatened the victim by stating that “The victim D (the age of 37) taken a face of satisfing with a satisfe with a knife and a knife with a knife” on the ground that the victim D (the age of 37) taken the satisf with a knife with a knife.

[2019 Highest 4062] (Defendants) Defendant A is free from office, and the Defendant is a party who resides in the same domicile as the cadastral disability 3rd class.

The Defendants had a cellular phone charged with public shock and conspired to sell it to E at the early stage.

At around 12:50 on February 2, 2019, the Defendants came to the G Center located in F in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul. Defendant A confirmed the location of CCTV, colors damaged goods, and Defendant B, according to the direction of Defendant A, carried out a gap in the surveillance of the victim H, which was filled in the public shock electricity of the above center, with the unbalth of Samsung Talthom 5 mobile phone, which was hidden in his own money.

As a result, the Defendants committed a theft of the aforementioned mobile phone, which is the property of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

[2019 Highest 2009] [Defendant A]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement of D [2019 Highest 4062] (Defendants);

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. A’s legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each statement of H and E;

1. A register of filling and using mobile phones;

1. Defendant B and defense counsel asserts that at the time, A had the victim’s cell phone known to E by requesting that “if the E’s cell phone charging is completed, it would result in the occurrence of heavy load,” and that at the time there was no fact of theft of the victim’s cell phone in collusion with A.

However, according to the above evidence, while the defendant knew that the victim's cell phone is not E, the victim's cell phone is as stated in the judgment of A.

arrow