logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.03.18 2016고정72
협박등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendant, on June 25, 2015, by using a mobile phone from around 11:23 Gyeong-gun, 405, is subject to any of the following crimes: (a) a cell phone from around 11:23 Gyeong-gun, 405; (b) a cell phone from around 74 years of age.

Nant's life is to the extent that it is necessary.

How much important persons have met, life-long, and live.

In addition to sending the word "Seo-gu, Ma," the victim was threatened three times in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

2. Interference with and insult of duties;

A. On August 10, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime committed at around 17:00 on August 10, 2015, 2015, expressed that “The victim, the head of the branch office of the above branch, “Is up to the same year, Is up to the same year, and two years in the calculation of tax base, Is up to the amount of money,” was able to avoid disturbance, such as delaying the sales consultation service of the above branch.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim's cosmetics branch by openly insulting and forceing the victim.

B. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant committed the crime at around 17:40 on August 12, 2015, 2015, and the head of the district office of education at the above head of the district office of education at the above head of the district office of education at the above head of the district in the above head of the district in question, such as “influence, within the amount of salinal money, within both years, and within the amount of taxable and taxable income,” the Defendant was unable to perform the duty of closing the business of the said branch in question.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim's cosmetics branch by openly insulting and forceing the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Application of the police statement protocol law to C

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, each of the following subparagraphs, Article 314(1) (a) (a point of interference with business) of the Criminal Act, Article 311 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively, for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

arrow