logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.08.25 2017노28
특수협박등
Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

(2) the date of this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s special intimidation among the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment’s judgment, the lower court convicted Defendant 1 of this part of the facts charged, on the ground that the Defendant committed an act of self-influoring his head on the part of the principal soldier, not with intent to threaten the victim, and the victim did not feel fear. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) As to the fact-misunderstanding of facts in the facts charged of this case, the victim G and F, who correspond to the facts charged, interfere with the duty due to the act of deceiving the consignee and the suspect, were more reliable than the statement in the court in light of all the circumstances, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The defendant argued to the above purport at the court below as to the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts, and the court below, as to this point, may be made through dynamics, depending on the following legal principles and circumstances, i.e., the act of notifying harm in the crime of intimidation (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5146, Sept. 10, 2009, etc.). If it is sufficient to cause fear to the other party by piracy notice, regardless of whether the other party realistically made fear, the elements of the crime of intimidation have been met and the crime of intimidation has been completed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606, Sept. 28, 2007). In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have exceeded gates and his head, thereby leading the victim to the act of harming himself.

arrow