(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.01.11 2017노1176 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.01.11 2017노1176

특수협박등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) On July 15, 2016, 2016, following the instant taxi going to the instant taxi, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant ceased to stop on the front of the instant taxi, but it is insufficient to view it as a sufficient intimidation to cause fear.

The defendant's act does not constitute a retaliation driving.

The defendant asserts that this argument is above.

2) The lower court’s respective sentences (the first instance court’s suspended sentence in August, 200, community service 120 hours, violent therapy lectures, and fine 1 million won) are too unreasonable.

B. Each sentence of the court below by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, namely, (i) the Defendant was going to the instant taxi on July 15, 2016, and (ii) was frightened at approximately 20 to 30 meters away from the front of the instant taxi on July 15, 2016, and was frightened and frighted by the Defendant’s vehicle at the Oral Bado. (iii) The Defendant frighted to the back of the instant taxi to the extent that the Defendant’s vehicle was frightened to the lower investigation agency to the extent that the Defendant’s frightened the Defendant’s vehicle at the time.

In full view of the fact that the taxi at the time stated to the effect that the situation was very dangerous, and the passenger of the taxi at this case stated to the same purport at the investigative agency, and the fact that the taxi at this case’s statement to the same effect is considerably larger than that of the two-wheeled vehicle, or that fire-fighting or scambling is much larger than that of the two-wheeled vehicle, and in the event of a traffic accident, the driver suffered serious injury, it can be assessed as sufficient intimidation to cause fear of the above act by the defendant. Thus, the defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles is rejected.

3. Determination as to the unjust assertion of sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor

A. The judgment of the court below No. 1 is the injury of the victim.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.11.23 2017노967

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.07 2017노1026

-의정부지방법원 2021.01.22 2019노3520

-서울동부지방법원 2017.07.13 2017노78

-수원지방법원 2015.12.16 2015노3685