logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.06.28 2013노1465
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복범죄등)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the day of the misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant, who was released from prison labor for six months, was released from prison labor for the six-month period, and went home with two copies and fessings, and asked the victim to the effect that “it would be corrected because it would be overlapping with the reported contents,” without any idea, because he was sent back to the Yeongdeungpo Fire Station D Safety Center located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “D Safety Center”), and the victim was refused to reject the report, and did not have the purpose of retaliation and intimidation. However, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, was erroneous in matters of mistake of facts.

B. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime under Article 5-9 (2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when the purpose of retaliation for the provision of a criminal investigation report, such as accusation or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials is required with respect to the investigation or trial of his/her or another person's criminal case. The purpose of the crime is not required to be active or conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient to have dolusence. Whether there was such purpose should be determined reasonably in light of social norms, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances such as the defendant's age, occupation, etc., the motive, background, means, method, and relation with the victim.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant, at around 23:30 on December 27, 201, demanded the transfer of the 119 first-lane hospital before the D Safety Center, but the fire fighter rejected the request, shall enter the office and take a bath to him/her.

arrow