(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.6.13. 선고 2014고합515 판결

On April 12, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months in Seoul Central District Court due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and completed the enforcement of the sentence on November 24, 2013 at Seoul Detention Center.

【Criminal Facts】

"2014 Gohap515"

On August 24, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,00,000 for assaulting the victim C, such as d's flaps, and was sentenced to the same judgment by the same court on April 12, 2013 due to the occurrence of the victim D's bar business operations, the victim's restaurant business operations, etc. several times at the same court on April 12, 2013, and was sentenced to the same judgment as the record of the above crime, and the said victims reported the damage and had a good appraisal about the statement made by the investigation agency, and was sentenced to assault or intimidation after release.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

피고인은 2013. 12. 27. 00:50경 서울 종로구 E에 있는 'F' 술집에서 피해자 C(여, 59세)가 술을 마시고 있는 것을 발견하고 "씨발년, 저 년 때문에 내가 벌금내고 감방살다 왔다, 죽여 버린다."라고 말하면서 주점의 출입문을 잠그고, 계속해서 피해자가 주점 밖으로 나가려고 하자 손으로 피해자의 옷을 잡아 당겨 바닥에 넘어뜨리고 발로 넘어져있는 피해자의 허벅지를 1회 걷어찼다.

As a result, the Defendant assaulted the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the victim's statement, etc. related to the investigation of his criminal case.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

On January 1, 2014, at around 17:00, the Defendant: “G” operated by Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Victim D (hereinafter referred to as 55 years old); “G, the Defendant reported the Victim D (hereinafter referred to as the “V”) to enter the room to see the Victim’s Domination and back,” and the Defendant attempted to keep the Victim’s Domination, i.e., going beyond the bottom of the petroleum column located in the main point, and attempted to keep the Victim’s Domination, and continued to keep the Victim as drinking, and threatened the Victim with any harm and injury.

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim with the purpose of retaliation against the victim's statements, etc. related to the investigation of his criminal case.

3. Interference with business;

On February 1, 2014), at around 20:20 around 20:20, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s main store business by force for about 30 minutes by forcing customers to go up with his/her happiness, such as making customers dump with a pump, “dump bump bump bump,” while under the influence of alcohol in the drinking house as stated in paragraph 2.

"2014 Gohap593"

1. Interference with business;

On January 15, 2014, at around 22:40, the Defendant: (a) expressed the victim’s bath to the victim, such as the victim of Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu (the victim, who is aged 47), on the ground that the victim does not do so in the “Jnobyagle operated by the victim of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the victim, who is aged 47)”; and (b) took the victim’s bath to the victim, such as “the victim, who would bring about the helper and drinking,” and (c) exceeded the clothes at the front of the Kapoter, thereby interfering with the victim’s singing room business

2. Violence;

At the same time and place as Paragraph 1, the Defendant continued to use the victim K (59 years of age) who was the husband of the said I to ask him to leave a singing room, and committed assault, such as selling the victim's face at one time by hand, and putting the sexual part into force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police against K;

1. Each police statement made to C, D, and I;

1. A report on investigation (verification of criminal time, etc.);

1. Previous records: Criminal records and investigation reports (report on the confirmation of repeated crimes);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 5-9(2) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of each Criminal Act: Provided, That the proviso of Article 42 of each Criminal Act shall apply to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Refences, etc.) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

3. Aggravation for concurrent crimes; and

Article 37 (Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which has the largest degree of punishment and the nature of the crime as prescribed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Crimes within the proviso of

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for one year to 50 years; and

2. The scope of sentence recommended according to the sentencing criteria; and

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

[Determination of Punishment] Violence Crimes of No. 7 (Assault for Purpose of Retaliatory)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] ○ Aggravationd : Cumulative Offense

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of one year to two years and six months

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

[Determination of Punishment] Violence 5 Types 5 (Intimidation for Purpose of Retaliatory)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] ○ Aggravationd : Cumulative Offense

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of one year to two years and six months

[Determination of type] Violence 1 (General Violence)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] ○ Aggravationd : Cumulative Offense

[Scope of Recommendation] Four months to one year

(d) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to four years;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a two-year retaliation not only infringes on the personal legal interests of the victims, but also interferes with the discovery of substantial truth, thereby exerting a profound adverse effect on legitimate investigation, maintenance of public prosecution and public affairs of the investigative agency and the court, which are trials, and it is inevitable to impose severe punishment due to the significant harm and injury caused by the crime.

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was subject to criminal punishment due to the reporting of the victims; (b) committed assault or intimidation against the victims; (c) the victims seem to feel a considerable fear of fear; (d) a retaliation crime in itself does not mean that the victims themselves committed each of the crimes of this case; and (e) the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case even during the period of repeated crime; and (e) when considering the criminal records of the same kind in which the Defendant was committed, the Defendant appears to have violent inclinations, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant has led to all crimes of this case, the fact that the victims have not been injured due to each of the crimes of this case, etc., shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the age, health, etc.

Judges

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Yang Sung-tae

Judges Shin Young-ju

Note tin

1) The indictment states that the facts charged as stated in the above paragraph (3) were in March 4, 2014. However, the victim D stated that the defendant was found in the around February 12, 2014 and satisfing, and that the defendant was found in the prosecutor's office around February 12, 2014, and the defendant stated that he/she had taken the above drinking house at the prosecutor's office around February 12, 2014, and that he/she received the sentence around February 12, 2014, which is attached to the investigation report (verification of criminal time, etc.) and stated that the sentence was received around February 12, 2014, and thus, the defendant corrected and stated that he/she committed the above crime on February 12, 2014.

2) The crime of interference with business shall be dealt with according to the criteria for processing multiple crimes, for crimes with no sentencing guidelines set.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의9 제2항

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.13 2014고합515

-부산지방법원 2014.8.22.선고 2014고합341 판결

-서울남부지방법원 2016.6.30.선고 2016고합159 판결

-의정부지방법원 2014.01.10 2013고합504

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.14 2015고합206