2013Gohap 284 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Intimidation, etc.);

Property Damage

A person shall be appointed.

Final Prosecutor (Public Trial) and Lee Jin (Public Trial)

Attorney Yang Young-young

February 19, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

Facts of crime

【Criminal Power】

On August 13, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective act of violence, such as a deadly weapon) at the Ulsan District Court on August 13, 201, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years on January 31, 2012.

[Criminal Facts]

On May 16, 2013: around 00: 10, the Defendant assaulted and threatened the victim E (the age of 45) who is the seat of the victim D and his/her female, and voluntarily accompanied the police officer called the victim D upon receiving a report of the victim D on the ground that at the "C' restaurant located in the second floor in Ulsan-gun-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S., the second floor of the 2nd floor of the non-profit-making B, the Defendant was under investigation by assault and intimidation at the police box located in the Dong-gu, Ulsan-gun, U.S., U.S., the victim D and his/her female, and the victim E (the age of 45), who was called the victim D and his/her female. The Defendant was willing to take a retaliation against the victims.

On May 16, 2013, 03: (a) the Defendant returned to the above 'C' restaurant immediately after returning to the above 'C' box at around 20: (b) the Defendant found the victim D, E, and her daily activities, including the victim D, died, discarded, killed. (c) The Defendant took a knife and knife in the kitchen and knife in the kitchen, and knife the glass knife in the glass box, “The reported knife would have been clearly flifed; (b) the inside the inside the knife, the back of the knife would have been 2, 3th, and knife the victim’s body, and the victim’s body was 450,000 glass entrance and knife the knife of the knife of the knife.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened victims with the purpose of retaliation against his criminal case investigation team's provision, statement, etc., and damaged another's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement in court (on the third trial date);

1. Each legal statement of D, E, 000, 000, 000, 000 of the witness.

1. Investigation report (report on the calculation of the amount of damage, confirmation of the market price of the chemical load), internal investigation report (measures for failing to conduct an investigation, taking measures for returning home and suspected suspicion);

(i) Investigation into the speech of A), a photo of the scene of damage, a station CCTV photograph, etc., and a photo of the scene of damage, such as a photo of the victim.

- 2.0

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records and other similar statements (A), investigation reports (former records and attachment reports to judgments, and summary names;

A copy of the order shall be attached, the date of completion of the term of punishment, and the confirmation of the grounds for termination thereof), each written judgment and summary order

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 5-9 (2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act.

The purpose of intimidation, Article 366 of the Criminal Code (the point of causing property damage and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act: Provided, That Article 35 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

Article 42 (Limits)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes with heavier punishment

Punishment of Concurrent Crimes in violation of the Act on Punishment, etc. (Intimidation, etc.)

The extent of the proviso of Article 42 shall be limited

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months - 25 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentencing guidelines;

(a) Basic crimes: Crimes against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.);

[Determination of Type] Intimidation of Violence

[Special Convicts] Reductions: Non-Punishments

Aggravations: Cumulative repeated crimes of the same kind (excluding the types of habitual and intimidation of repeated crimes of four categories);

[Limits and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment from April to April 1st

(b) The standards for handling multiple crimes and the revised recommended punishment: Imprisonment for six months to one year and four months.

Since the crime of causing property damage is an offense for which the sentencing criteria are not set, the lower limit is the sentencing period.

(1) The lower limit of the scope of sentence on the sentencing criteria for basic crimes on which applicable standards are set shall be based, and the applicable penalty shall be set by law.

[Limits as to the extent of this Act]

3. Determination of sentence: Six months of imprisonment; and

On August 13, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.), a crime of causing property damage, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence in the Ulsan Detention House on January 31, 2012.

Then, considering the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and the criminal history of criminal punishment has reached 24 times, and the above sentence has the same effect as that of the instant crime due to the destruction of goods, intimidation against the owner of a shouldered bottle, and assault of the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant would have completed the period from the main place of business, and that there is a similar effect to the case where the Defendant was the origin of the instant crime, and on the other hand, there are several occasions for the Defendant to have been punished by the use of violence against the owner of a drinking house and his/her employees, and immediately after the police warning was neglected and investigated by the police station, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant as to the instant crime, taking into account the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime and committed the instant crime, and only imprisonment is provided for the crime of retaliation intimidation.

However, in light of the fact that the defendant's mistake and reflects late, the victims and victims do not want punishment against the defendant, and other various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, circumstances of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered by the order.

Judges fixed line

Judges Round 1

Judges Mahova-Gyeong