logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노2182
공갈미수등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the attempted charge of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant did not have threatened the victim D with 300,000 won.

With respect to the obstruction of duties and injury, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim I, or did not leave the victim I.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and thereby convicted all of the charges.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the records on the part of the attempted charge of a misunderstanding of facts, the victim D agreed with the Defendant and submitted to the court of the original instance a written application for a punishment of “the defendant did not demand KRW 300,000,000.”

However, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted, the following facts are revealed.

Although the Defendant did not have any weight on his own, the Defendant demanded the victim D to share the case with the emergency room.

Although the victim D was about to go through the emergency room, the head of the emergency room, and the head of the family, the defendant continued to go with the victim D, and the victim D reported to the police.

The defendant argued in the police that his wife was caused by the victim D's traffic accident.

In addition, in full view of the background, method and frequency of reporting the victim D as the defendant did not receive money, and the following circumstances, the defendant demanded 300,000 won agreement as the victim's first statement and reported the victim D as illegal business.

of intimidation may be sufficiently recognized.

The lower court did not err in its judgment that found the Defendant guilty of attempted crimes.

The defendant's assertion that this part of the facts is erroneous is rejected.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined on the part of the obstruction of business and violence, the Defendant reported the illegal business of D on May 31, 2015, thereby allowing the police to send it to the police.

arrow