(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.12.07 2017노2490 | 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) 창원지방법원 2017.12.07 2017노2490

공갈등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the attempted conflict and attack), Defendant received KRW 1 million from the victim E around April 29, 2016. However, this is merely for the victim’s own community residents, and the Defendant did not intimidating the victim by threatening the victim, but did not intimidating the victim at around the around the 30th of the same month.

2) It is unfair that the lower court’s imposition of penalties of KRW 7 million, loan business, etc., and the crime of violation of the Act on the Protection of Financial Users is too unreasonable on the grounds that the lower court’s imposition of penalties (including KRW 7 million, and KRW 7 million,000,000,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court determined as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated: (i) the victim started embling construction around April 29, 2016, namely, around 09:00, the Defendant filed a civil petition with the Gosung-gun Office at around 10:00, one hour after the victim started embling construction; (ii) the Defendant’s continuous civil petition filing date, at around 11:30, on the same day as the Defendant’s continuous filing date, confirmed the occurrence of flying dust and noise; (iii) flying dust was almost not generated; (iv) noise was only occurred; (iii) dump truck entered the construction site through a national highway, not the village residents’ length; and (iv) the construction site and the house of the Defendant was approximately 255m in a straight line; and (iv) the Defendant’s house was able to recover the victim’s house to prevent damage to the residents.

Although the defendant filed a civil petition to prevent the construction from continuing to do so, the defendant will file a civil petition.

In addition, the defendant was asked about what is necessary for the victim, and one million won.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.01.10 2015고단500

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.08.16 2017고단168

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.06.24 2015고단1704

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.02.18 2015고단2612

-대전지방법원 2017.11.20 2017고단2512