logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.04 2013노425
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the most important fact that the defendant committed a crime of attack with his accomplice and caused the victims to drink, is "shall undergo an investigation by the police". In such a case, the illegality of the defendant's job on duty, which the defendant planned, is not included in the act of attack, and is not a separate crime of abandonment of duty, except for the crime of attack.

B. In light of the circumstance leading up to the Defendant’s instant crime, the current home situation, economic situation, and agreement with the victims, etc., the sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles, the purpose of the defendant's attack in this case is not to actively conceal the thief committed by the victims, but to merely acquire property by threatening the victims. Thus, it cannot be recognized that the defendant's violation of public official's duty is included as a matter of course in the public conflict. In addition, the crime of public conflict under the protection of property rights and freedom and the crime of abandonment of duty under the protection of the State's legal interest is a crime entirely different from its contents, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint conflict) and the crime of abandonment of duty is a substantive concurrent crime. Thus, the defendant's assertion in

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant recognized most of the facts charged in the instant case in addition to disputing legal principles, and reflects them, and there are favorable circumstances such as agreement with the victims, but the instant crime is extremely poor and damage to the State’s function caused by the instant crime.

arrow