(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.02.05 2013노4575 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.02.05 2013노4575

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in this case, we find out that F was aware of the fact that the Defendant stolen the Defendant’s wall and used cash located within the Defendant’s wall and did not voluntarily make a report to the police, and that the Defendant intended to pay KRW 1 million to F with his accomplices. In addition, the phrase that the Defendant intended to report to the police does not exceed the permissible extent and scope as a legitimate means of exercising his right as a larceny victim, and does not constitute another’s property, which is the object of the crime of public conflict. 2) As to the jointly confinement among the facts charged in this case, the part of the facts charged in this case pertaining to the Defendant’s money owned by F, which is the object of the crime of public conflict, falls under the property owned by the Defendant, and is not the object of the crime of public conflict. However, although the Defendant’s daily confinement at the time came to return to F to the Defendant’s office, it is not that the Defendant’s voluntary confinement took place between the Defendant and the Defendant’s police station to report his larceny.

3) Nevertheless, the lower court found all of the facts charged of this case guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. B. In light of all the sentencing conditions of the instant case on unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Intimidation as a means of the crime of intimidation refers to informing a person of harm that may be frighten to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making. Here, the realization of harm and injury so notified does not necessarily require that it is unlawful and is used as a means of realizing the right.

유사 판례

-대법원 2015.10.29 2014도13615

-대전지방법원 2015.07.09 2015노609

-서울서부지방법원 2013.11.28 2013노620

-인천지방법원 2014.10.17 2014노2572

-서울동부지방법원 2014.05.30 2013노1581