beta
Text
The prosecution of this case is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The Defendant and the victim C (the age of 49) in the facts charged are the history of de facto marriage for about five years.
The Defendant forged the will book in the name of the network E, a founder of the D University, and defrauds money by the means of presenting it to the members of the network E, and if F does not comply with this, he is detained due to the criminal facts committed by threatening the net E's life vision as if he reported to the media, etc., thereby threateninging the money. After the Defendant was detained, the Defendant attempted to threaten the victim to find out the defect in seeking to contact with the Defendant.
Defendant,
A. On January 2, 2014, around 15:46, the victim’s house located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Apartment 116 Dong 306, Gangdong-gu, stating that the victim would not open the door, thereby threatening the victim “I will die without opening the door.”
B. Around January 2014, at the same time, the victim and H were accused of indecent act from the head of the D University Planning Office (the network E) and the head of the student group at the place where the victim and H were met. On the other hand, a complaint may be received to the extent of one billion won. If the complaint is not filed, a complaint may be filed with a width as a crime of forging private document, and a one-month complaint shall be made in one month, and a life-long shall be taken along with life. If the complaint is not made, a threat would be made by bullying to the victim and H. It would be difficult for the victim to commit an indecent act.
2. We examine the judgment. The facts charged in this case are crimes falling under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim's explicit intent in accordance with Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act.
However, according to the records of this case, the victim's withdrawal of his/her wish to punish the defendant on March 6, 2015, which was after the prosecution of this case, is recognized. Thus, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.