beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
Defendant
The court below convicted the Defendant by misunderstanding the fact that: (a) the Defendant raised an objection against pressure from leaving the company that the Defendant operated by misunderstanding of facts; (b) sent an official door that contains excessive expressions; (c) subsequently, the victimized company was able to have issued an official door to the victim company; and (d) if the victimized company requested what he want to do and understood the snow of the partner company, the victim requested the subsidization of the shared growth fund; and (e) did not demand certain money by threatening the victimized company, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the victimized company did not demand certain amount of money.
The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
It is unfair that the sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible.
Judgment
The crime of coercioning a judgment on a mistake of facts or intimidation, which is the means of a crime of coercioning a judgment on a mistake of facts, refers to the threat of harm and injury sufficient to restrict a person’s freedom of decision-making or interfere with a person’s freedom to enforce a decision-making. The threat of harm and injury is sufficient if, even if there is no explicit method, it would be sufficient to have the other party aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party through speech or behavior, and may be indirectly made through a third party other than the person under threat. In cases where an actor demands the delivery of property or pecuniary benefits by using an unlawful console based on his/her occupation, status, etc., and where the other party refuses to comply with the demand, it is also a threat of harm and injury (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1374, Apr. 11, 2013).