(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.02 2017노2091 | 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 2017.11.02 2017노2091

협박

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Although the Defendant sent the text message to the victim D as stated in paragraph 2 of the instant facts charged, the transmission of the above text message does not constitute a threat of harm and injury as stated in the crime of intimidation, and in light of the victim’s age, relationship with the Defendant, etc., the Defendant’s act does not contravene social norms.

2) The Defendant did not pose a threat to the victim as stated in paragraph (3) of the instant facts charged.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the term "in the crime of intimidation" refers to the notification of harm to the extent that it may cause fear to an ordinary person, and the notification of harm to the extent that it may be deemed possible to establish a crime of intimidation must be made at least. Even if there is a malicious notice, if it is acceptable in light of social customs and ethical norms, etc., the crime of intimidation is not established. However, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act, such as the background leading up to such act, relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2412, May 26, 201, etc.). According to evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant wants to see the victim on the ground that the victim filed a civil complaint against the Defendant's work on July 29, 2016.

“The facts of intimidation” (Article 1 of the facts charged of this case recognized by the defendant), and the defendant thereafter

9. 17. The victim, like paragraph 2 of the facts charged in this case, “The victim will pay for the amount of the response.”

참조판례

-대법원 2011. 5. 26. 선고 2011도2412 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.10 2015노3337

-수원지방법원 2016.09.21 2016노3116

-서울남부지방법원 2017.12.21 2017고단4580

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.10 2019노353

-서울서부지방법원 2013.04.25 2013노47