logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.01.10 2017고정495
공갈
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the chief specialist of D Co., Ltd.

On July 19, 2014, the Defendant entered into a consulting agreement with the victim company on the purpose of solving NTF (No Trouble Faunder, cause uncertainty) of automobile parts BCF produced and supplied by the victim company to Hyundai Mos Co., Ltd. at the office of the victim F Co., Ltd. located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, 2014. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant was transferred the down payment of KRW 8250,000 (including value added 10%).

On August 21, 2014, the defendant tried not to pay any balance to the victim company's research institute located on the fourth floor of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building on the ground that the causes of NTF have not been properly identified according to the consulting contract. For this purpose, the defendant's director of the victim company "F's NTF cause on the modern mother visa is due to forgery."

The phrase " was frightened."

On September 5, 2014, the victim company, which was fluent, remitted 8.25 million won to the foreign exchange bank account in the name of D Co., Ltd. as the balance of the above consulting contract.

As such, the Defendant notified the victim’s company that it would inflict harm on the victim’s property or credit, and received KRW 8.25 million from the victim company, which was frightened.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, I, and J;

1. A copy of each document attached thereto (Evidence 1-12 evidence, evidence 13-16-3, evidence 17-17-19, evidence 20-1-21 evidence), and a copy of the records of the case No. 2015-type document No. 2015-type document No. 2015-type document No. 20595 of the Incheon District Public Prosecutor's Office (Movis complaint case);

1. Application of the video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 350 (Selection of Penalty Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion are the victim F.

arrow