Whether it can be assessed as property interest, which is the object of the crime of notarial conflict with a female (negative)

Since the crime of extortion refers to a crime of property, which is an object of property crime, and in general, since the government itself with a female cannot be economically assessed, it cannot be deemed that a female has obtained property benefits, unless there are special circumstances, and even if a female has entered into a regular intercourse, it cannot be deemed that a female has obtained property benefits, unless there are special circumstances, and even if a female has entered into a regular relationship with the defendant, there is no room to regard that the defendant was exempted from the payment of the price, so there is no reason to regard that the defendant was exempted from the payment of the price for the conduct.

Article 350 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 82No2175 delivered on October 15, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

The crime of extortion refers to a crime of property which is an object of property and has economic benefits, and in general, it cannot be evaluated as an economic benefits. Thus, even if a woman s/he has s/he has s/he s/he s/ s/he s/ s/he s/ s/he s/ s/ s/he s/ s/he s/ s

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged that the defendant, while carrying a fake scambling, induced the victim who scambling in the scam room and let him do so, using the condition of the scambling woman, and sexual intercourse with scambling at one time, thereby causing an economic benefit equivalent to the scambling price of the female, on the ground that the above judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of the crime of conflict, such as theory.

The issue is that the settlement of a lending with a woman or a principal lending such as the above victim can be said to be a monetary benefit, and therefore, the settlement with such person can be deemed to be an economic benefit. As long as a woman or a principal lending and a principal lending are established using a means of conflict and the payment of the price is exempted, the crime of conflict is established. However, in this case, as long as the above victim is not a principal lending, even if the above victim is a principal lending loan, it is not a settlement with the defendant, there is no room to view that the defendant exempted the payment of the price for the principal lending. Thus, the above argument is groundless without any further determination.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)