(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노2015 | 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) 창원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노2015

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the lower court dismissed the prosecution and sentenced Defendant B guilty of the remainder of the facts charged.

However, since only Defendant B appealed on the conviction part of the judgment below and did not appeal all the Prosecutor and Defendant regarding the dismissal part of the public prosecution, the dismissal part of the judgment below became final and conclusive as it is.

Therefore, only the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, although Defendant B was aware of the fighting of C, D, and E, and did not attack or detain I, Defendant B was guilty of the facts charged.

2) The sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant D1) The lower court found Defendant D1 guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, even though there was a fact that the head debt of Defendant C was saved with C by misunderstanding the facts. However, the lower court found Defendant D1 guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, even though it was not saved with C’

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

E1) The lower court found Defendant E guilty of the instant facts charged even though he was at the scene of the misunderstanding of facts, but did not do any act to the victim C.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the victim I consistently prevented Defendant B and A from leaving the door from opening from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court.

In particular, when the first statement is made by the investigative agency, Defendant B stated that “the secret number is called as soon as possible.”

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.10.27 2016노4311

-인천지방법원 2016.09.28 2016노704

-서울고등법원 2017.01.13 2016노2702

-서울서부지방법원 2017.07.13 2017노125

-창원지방법원 2017.02.16 2016노3297