(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.5.25.선고 2016고단5063 판결

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting the amount of one million won into one day.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is a victim F who had been singing in a singing voice and became aware of by customers, and the defendant heard the phrase "to get employed in the account of the office of door-to-door distribution and offer to find employment through the account of the office of door-to-door distribution", and was in a relationship with a man for about three weeks.

A. On March 24, 2016, around 20:00, the Defendant considered the fact that the victim believed and married without standing H room 205 at Yangsan-si, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that she was the father of his/her family; (b) provided the victim with a loan certificate that he/she would compensate 30 million won as mental consolation money for her or her or her family members, and would pay 30 million won as mental consolation money for her or her or her family members; (c) filed a complaint with the Defendant for fraud if he/she was inside the loan certificate; and (d) provided four houses with a loan certificate that he/she would take advantage of all her or her actions against her and her family members; (d) provided 30 million won with a loan certificate to the obligor; and (e) provided the victim with a notarial police station with a loan certificate that he/she would not obtain money for her or her family members; and (e) provided it with a notarial loan certificate to the Defendant.

B. On April 2, 2016, the Defendant paid 26 million won monthly wage of 20 million won and 26 million won in total, including retirement allowances of 20 million won and retirement allowances of 2.6 million won, which would have been received if the Defendant had been employed in the account for the above reasons at the location described at a port of port. The Defendant, at the same time, obtained a loan certificate from the victim frighted with a small loan certificate, and acquired pecuniary profits by obtaining a loan certificate of 26 million won in total from the victim as the debtor.

C. At around 12:00 on April 14, 2016, the Defendant issued three million won in cash to the victim at a place described in a virtual port by giving the victim “as soon as possible a money, and as soon as possible, a satise at a satum house,” which is called “as soon as possible,” and received three million won in cash from the victim of drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of witness F in the second protocol of the trial;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution (including the F substitute description);

1. Some of the suspect interrogation records of the police officers against the accused (including F substitute records);

1. Part of the police statement concerning F;

1. A letter of complaint and recording;

1. A certified copy of a notarial deed, a certified copy of a loan, or a photograph of loan;

1. Written opinions and records of the complainant's agent (No. 17);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Code (Selection of Fine)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Judgment on the assertion of defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

In light of the experience of the victim, the defendant asserts to the effect that the illegality of the defendant's complaint against the victim or finding it in the house is excluded because it is merely a level or level permitted by social norms.

Even if one has a legitimate right, if one wants to receive property or to receive pecuniary benefits by means of intimidation beyond the permissible level and scope under the social norms, it shall be deemed that the crime of attack was commenced. In such a case, whether certain acts exceed the permissible level and scope under the social norms should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the subjective and objective aspects of the act, i.e., the purpose and selected means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2127, Dec. 13, 1991; 94Do2422, Mar. 10, 195; 2006Do9595, May 12, 199).

It can be acknowledged that the defendant committed each of the acts of this case in the court below that he was actually injured by the victim while knowing that he was married to his occupation and that he was actually injured for about three weeks due to the relationship between the defendant and the victim's family living together for about three weeks, and that he was living together in the defendant's house, and that he would be able to find the defendant as being married to his father and her father, and that he would be able to get the victim to compensate even with money.

However, the main intent of the victim's expression to the effect that he would know about his behavior in the past by finding the victim's home while knowing that he is a minor father and wife at the victim's home is not just a defendant's behavior but also a defendant's behavior to assist the defendant's defendant's or his family, and the defendant's own ability to pay a large amount of money was received more easily from the victim. In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant received a certificate of loan by using the loan even though he knows that he would find the victim's home while he knows that he would get her to find it more, the defendant's act constitutes a threat of harm and injury exceeding the social norms even in consideration of the victim's behavior and degree.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

In the course of sentencing, the defendant's occurrence of this case occurred in the course of seeking compensation to the victim who scambling himself, the degree of harm and injury notification is not excessive, the defendant deposited 3 million won in the amount that the defendant has renounced his exercise of his right to each loan of this case, the defendant has no special criminal record, the defendant appears to reflect his gender, and other circumstances, including the motive and background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, etc., and the conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are shown in the records and arguments, shall be determined as ordered