(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.05.18 2017노627 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2018.05.18 2017노627

공갈등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, against the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: Intimidation as a means of the crime of attacking a victim’s attack refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the realization of harm and injury notified here does not necessarily require that it is unlawful.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do13615 Decided October 29, 2015). (See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do13615, Oct. 29, 2015) The following circumstances acknowledged based on evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court (i.e., the victim: (a) on March 13, 2016, the victim was involved in an accident involving other vehicles under the influence of drinking; (b) the Defendant, who was dispatched to the accident site to process insurance, received a written statement of being aware that the victim was under the influence of drinking at the time of the accident, but failed to submit it to the insurance company; (c) on March 15, 2016, the Defendant provided that the victim would inform the insurance company of drinking if he did not deposit KRW 280,000,000 to himself; and (c) on the same day, the victim was likely to suffer disadvantages to the Defendant’s account at the time of his mother’s request to prevent the Defendant from being informed of insurance policies.

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the act of Paragraph 1 of the decision of the court below does not constitute a public conflict is without merit.

B. The insured's drinking driver who deals with insurance business to determine unfair sentencing.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017노1600

-대전고등법원 2018.10.12 2018노18

-창원지방법원 2016.03.31 2016노91

-창원지방법원 2017.10.11 2017노1570

-대전지방법원 2018.02.07 2017노3551