logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2019.02.14 2018고단1737
특수협박
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a licensed real estate agent managing the Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City B apartment C, and the victim D (V, 58 years old) is a business owner operating the “E” on the first floor of the above commercial building.

At around 17:20 on January 13, 2018, the Defendant: (a) laid a string in front of the instant apartment C, which was operated by the victim of the instant apartment C, on the ground that he did not pay the management expenses; (b) laid a string string in front of the instant apartment C, which was a dangerous object accumulated before the first floor of the commercial building; (c) laid the string in front of the said E; (d) laid the string of the said string; (e) laid the string of the string of the string; (e) laid the string of the string of the string; (e) laid the string of the string of the string; and (e) broken the string of the string of the string; and (e) laid down the string of the string of the string; and (e) laid down the string of the string.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;

1. 112 reported case handling table;

1. Investigation report (Submission of CCTV image data, etc. of victim D);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the spot and damaged photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 284 and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The main point of the argument is that the Mart operator who was accumulated with an emptyer's wound in the commercial passage was killed in F with an emptyer's wound, and only left F with an emptyer's wound, and there was no threat of harm and injury, such as throwing the victim directly at the victim's address or stating "I will interfere with funeral services by ging gricker's wound," and there was no intention.

The victim has also taken the defendant's behavior in a mobile phone, and it is hot.

arrow