beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair punishment) of the original judgment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Ex officio determination
A. A. Around June 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) put up a vehicle on the top of the body of the body of the body of the owner of the vehicle near Asan City at the seat of the body of the owner of the vehicle; (b) put the vehicle on the side of the body of the owner of the vehicle; (c) put the vehicle on the side of the body of the owner of the vehicle at the direction of the vehicle; and (d) put the victim under the direction of the owner of the vehicle, such as “singing-out, sing-out, sing-out,” and demanded the victim to pay the vehicle fee; (d) said, “Sing-out, sing-out, sing-out, and sing-out, sing-out, sing-out, sing-out, sing-out on the surface of the s
Accordingly, the defendant was exempted from paying an amount equivalent to 19,100 won of taxi fees as above, thereby gaining property benefits from the same amount of money.
B. Determination 1) In order to establish a crime of conflict due to the acquisition of pecuniary benefits, there must be a dispositive act that gives pecuniary benefits to the person subject to conflict, such as assault or intimidation. Of course, such dispositive act is sufficient without necessarily engaging in an act, and even if the person subject to conflict has taken away his/her own pecuniary benefits during the implied period by causing an appearance, the crime of conflict may be established. However, in full view of the evidence in the judgment below, the court below found the charge guilty of all of the charges, by taking account of the following: (a) the other party of the assault was not a dispositive act in the above sense; (b) the other party was not a dispositive act in the above sense; and (c) the perpetrator was assaulted by the other party and escaped at the site to avoid the provision of legally mandatory pecuniary benefits to the other party, and is merely an obstacle to the realization of the pecuniary benefits that the other party could have originally obtained, the other party cannot be held liable for the crime of conflict (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16044, Jan. 27, 2012).
3. However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.