logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.04.21 2016고단297
상습공갈등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

From May 2004 to February 2005, the Defendant received money and valuables under a promise not to communicate with the victim C (44 tax) from around May 2004, and from around March 12, 2007, the Defendant received money and valuables under a promise not to contact with the victim C (44 tax).

1. Habitual violence;

A. On October 12, 2015, the Defendant posted a large number of children on the bulletin board of the Korean website, which is operated by the injured party at the Defendant’s home located in Jeju-si.

If the victim did not pay money by posting a notice to the effect that he/she would not absolute contact until he/she has repaid the money, he/she received KRW 5 million from the victim's family members, which he/she would have been frighting to notify the fact of the fright, and received KRW 5 million from the victim of drinking fright to the new bank account in the name of E on the same day on the same day, and from around that time to December 30, 2015, he/she received a total of KRW 40,40 million in the same way as indicated in the attached Table Nos. 1 through 3 and 8 to 10, 2015.

B. On December 12, 2015, the Defendant sent KRW 5.2 million to the victim by using a mobile phone at the Defendant’s home as indicated in the preceding paragraph from the Defendant’s cell phone to give money requested by the victim at a low time.

If sending an e-mail to the purport that “if you do not give money, you would like to give the victim’s family members fright to receive money from the victim by giving the victim’s fright to know the fact of fright, and then, from around that time to February 23, 2016, the victim demanded money by the same method 11 times in total as indicated in the attached Table Nos. 4 through 7 and 11 to 17, but the victim did not send money, but did not return money to the police, and did not intend to do so.

As above, the Defendant habitually assaulted the victim and did not receive property from the person suffering from drinking, or did not bring about such intent.

2. The Defendant’s defamation is the Defendant’s person indicated in the preceding port on February 22, 2016.

arrow