(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014노1165

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) 서울동부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014노1165

업무방해등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part) consistently states from the investigation stage to the effect that "the defendant demanded money as a cost for the protection of a place of business regardless of the reversal of a business agreement," and the victim consistently states such damage H also statement, G merely made a statement related to obstruction of business, and did not make any statement about public conflict, and the defendant demanded money as a cost for protection in the name of the victim's speech and behavior to the effect that "the victim demanded money as a cost for protection" with the name of "the chairperson of a merchant" who has no substance," and the victim made a request for money as a cost for protection," and the victim made a full fear of fear. This is the same as the case's statement to the effect that the defendant was deemed a third party, and the defendant appears to have engaged in several actions threatening the victim, and in fact, it was proved that the victim interfered with business at the main point of the victim's operation, and therefore, the court below acquitted the defendant of unjust sentencing in this part of the charges of this case [2 years imprisonment].

B. The defendant [the portion of the charge] The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On March 25, 2013, the Defendant issued a judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (not guilty part) 1 of the facts charged to the victim F (a main point of 67 years of age E in operation) in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, demanding the victim to pay the money as the expenses for the protection of business place, and did not do so, the Defendant frighted to the victim to find the said main point and fright.

As such, the Defendant: (a) 1 million won in cash from the victim who frightened the victim and fright thereto; and (b) 3.0 million won in cash from the victim.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013.11.22 2013노2222

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.06.26 2015고단846

-서울동부지방법원 2014.08.14 2013고단2064

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2014.08.07 2014고단176

-부산지방법원 2013.07.04 2012고단9594