beta
Text
The defendant will give public notice of the summary of the decision.
Reasons
1. On December 20, 2018, the Defendant: (a) driven BMW car on the 2014:25 December 20, 2018; (b) was trying to drive as a retaliation on the ground that the victim F. (F., 57 years old) driving on the front side of the Daejeon Sung-gu Seoul apartment is driving along the E apartment from the Dart to the E apartment.
Accordingly, the Defendant driven the said BMW car, which is a dangerous object, and takes a warning to the large lock, “Is the elderly and the accident to be lowered,” making it possible for the Defendant to take a warning by driving the said BM passenger car in close vicinity to the damaged vehicle, and sign the light at a large 2 to 3 minutes, such as “Is the damaged vehicle, Is the speed above the central line in front of the Gu small riverside park, and stop in front of the damaged vehicle. Is the damaged vehicle to be lowered from the BM passenger car, “Is the CM passenger car, opened the door kbb, and drop back the accident to the end of the accident, Is the accident to the end of the accident, and then Is the end of the accident to the large 1 to 23 minutes.”
In this respect, the defendant carried a dangerous object, and threatened the victim.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial lies on the prosecutor, and the finding of guilt must be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, the defendant is suspected of guilty, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do735 Decided April 27, 2006, etc.). Articles 284 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act provide that a person who, carrying a dangerous object and intimidation a person shall be punished as a special intimidation. Here, the term “taking a dangerous object” includes not only the possession of the dangerous object but also the wide use of the dangerous object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 197), and “Intimidation.”