208Gohap38 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crimes, etc.)

A (57years, South Korea), Police Officers

Kang Jong-dae

Attorney Ha Young-young

September 26, 2008

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who serves as an investigation and guard in Busan XX police station.

With respect to the case in which one's friendship B was accused of fraud, the defendant was asked from the Dong Office of the District Prosecutors' Office around 17:00 on January 25, 2008, to ask the police officer of the Maritime Police Station who investigated the fraudulent incident to B by making a telephone, etc., and he met B in order to confirm the circumstances in which he became aware of the defendant at the prosecutor's office around 18:00 on the same day, and he made the statement that "the victim V (50 years of age) was investigated as a witness at the prosecutor's office and the defendant attempted B to intervene in the above fraudulent case." The defendant moved the victim's statement to the prosecutor's office on January 25, 2008, "the victim's cell was used to take violence against the victim's statement, and the defendant moved the victim's body to the prosecutor's office outside the entrance's bar," and then, he moved the victim's 'the article "the victim' out of the entrance'.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-9 (2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 260 (1) of

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act); 1. Suspension of execution

Judgment on the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

In light of the above facts, the defendant and his defense counsel found the victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's witness's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's victim's second.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant, in collusion with B, moved out of the air room of the article by putting flaps of the victim, as seen in the above facts of the crime, led the victim out of the air room of the article, and was waiting outside the air room of the article, and was flaged over the victim by drinking out the victim’s face, and was flading the victim’s right side, flae, kne, and flag, with the victim’s walking around 2 weeks of treatment, thereby causing injury to the victim.

However, the defendant stated from the investigative agency to this court that he was unable to anticipate that he would not have conspired with the fact of injury and that he would incur injury. According to the medical certificate attached to the statement in V, etc., the statement in the prosecutor's protocol, and the written statement attached to the written complaint of preparation of V, the defendant could not be acknowledged that the defendant would have committed an injury to the victim, "I would like to go to the prosecutor's office," and "I would like to go to go to the victim, I would like to go to go to do so," while I would like to go to go to go beyond the victim's face, I would like to see that the victim would have been injured as above, and that the defendant did not participate in the injury to the victim as above, and the defendant would not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant would have committed an injury to the victim with the intent to commit an act of causing injury to the victim in advance, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant would have done an act of causing harm to the victim with the intent to commit an act of violence as mentioned above.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against the defendant should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under a case where there is no proof of crime, or inasmuch as it is found that the defendant guilty of a crime of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crime) which constitutes the elements

The reason for sentencing was that the defendant found the victim for the purpose of retaliation on the ground that he had made the statement that he had aided the above B in relation to the fraud case against which he had his friendship, and that the defendant committed the above crime by leading the defendant to an appraisal even though the defendant was a police official in an occupation of fair law enforcement, it cannot be justified for any reason and should be socially neglected. Provided, That the victim had faithfully worked as a police official for about twenty-seven years from 1982 at the prosecutor's office, and the defendant had faithfully worked as a police official for about twenty-seven years from 1982. It is so ordered as per Disposition by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances leading to the crime of this case and other conditions of all the sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and character, environment

The presiding judge shall be the highest judge.

Judges Cho Jong-tae

Judge Meritorious;