logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.01 2017노461
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습공갈)
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Although there was a misunderstanding of the facts or a misunderstanding of the legal principles that some victims received money, there was no receipt of money from the victims.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charged facts, despite the fact that the defendant committed the second crime at least 1,2,12 per annum 21,31,48 of the annexed crime list (1), and the annexed crime list (2) No. 1,2,12 of the annexed crime list (2).

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is the means of the crime of attacking the legal doctrine, and intimidation refers to the threat of harm and injury sufficient to restrict a person’s freedom of decision-making or interfere with a person’s freedom to execute the decision-making. It is sufficient if a malicious notice does not necessarily require the method of specification, and has the perception that the other party would be able to sustain any harm and injury. Also, even if it is not directly or indirectly, it may be indirectly made through a third party other than the person under threat. In addition, the lower court’s determination based on the evidence duly adopted and examined the following circumstances in light of the following circumstances: (a) the perpetrator demands the delivery of property or financial benefits using an unlawful above-mentioned situation based on his occupation, status, bad sexual conduct, career, etc., and the other party’s failure to comply with the request, even if it causes the above-mentioned disadvantage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1565, Jul. 15, 2005).

arrow