logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.05 2015노481
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복협박등)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence revealed in the facts-finding and misapprehension of the legal principles, the court below found the whole charged guilty, but it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, acquitted the Defendants of interference with duties, intimidation, and bodily injury resulting from violence among the facts charged.

B. In light of the fact that the defendant with an unreasonable sentencing ratio (part of the crime) committed an assault during the period of repeated offense, etc., the lower court’s sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles was made as follows: (a) the Defendant’s obstruction of business as to interference with business, intimidation, and bodily injury caused by assault and assault; (b) the Defendant and E appears to have been in compliance with the Defendant and E at the time when the Defendant and E avoided disturbance within the main points; (c) the main points stated to the effect that “it is possible to see that he is operating alcohol and that he is able to do so, and that he does not have any monetary damage with the Defendant’s body fighting” was obstructed by the Defendant’s act.

It is difficult to deem that the risk of interference with business has occurred.

B. The Defendant’s statement to the effect that he did not have any hostile intimidation to the effect that he was the victim, can not be seen as the Defendant’s request for a true statement from the point of view that it is difficult to view that the Defendant forced a false statement, and even if the Defendant, who had been living in the Army Prison, referred to the Army Prison in dialogues with the victim after the occurrence of the assault incident, it appears to have referred to his experience and general contents, and is also the threat of harm that is difficult to be accepted by social norms.

arrow