logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.09.02 2014고단1311
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)
Text

Defendant

A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 19, 2013, around 02:40 on December 19, 2013, the Defendants conspired to take money and valuables by putting the victim E (17 years of age), victim F (18 years of age), victim G (16 years of age), and victim H (18 years of age) on a non-exclusive license.

The Defendants put on the victims of the Obaba, stating that “The Defendants would be able to make a report to the police because they are entering the fabababs without a license,” and that they would be fabbacing to the victims.”

As such, the Defendants received 150,000 won from the victim E, 170,000 won from the victim F, 130,000 won from the victim H, and 130,000 won from the victim H, where the market price is unknown.

As a result, the Defendants jointly received property from the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to police statements made to F, E, G, and H;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 3 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant A) (latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act;

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

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

1. In the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, all of the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is 19 years old, the amount of damage is small, the Defendants deposited the full amount of damage, the Defendant A is currently living in Seongdong-gu dental office, the mother of the Defendant A wishes to live in his wife, and the Defendant A seems to have a de facto relationship with his family, and the degree of his participation cannot be deemed to be significant. Defendant B is on probation.

arrow