(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.02 2014노5022 | 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) 수원지방법원 2015.09.02 2014노5022

감금등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) The detention of the defendant is a fact that the defendant preventss the victim, and was locked in the school room. However, there was no objective situation that it was difficult for the victim to take the school room at the time, and there was no intention to detain the defendant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant restricted the victim’s freedom of physical activities by making it considerably difficult for the victim to take the school room against the victim’s will. 2) The fact of intimidation is that the defendant made the statement as stated in the judgment of the court below or made a notification of harm and injury that could cause the victim to feel a fear, and there was no intention of intimidation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the ground of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to move into a specific area with the freedom to act of the person as the protected legal interest of the crime, and the above disability which makes it impossible or extremely difficult for the person to move into a specific area is not only physical and tangible obstacles, but also psychological and intangible obstacles, and the essence of confinement is not limited to the means and methods that restrict the freedom to act by restricting the freedom to act. Thus, the means and methods are either tangible or intangible or intangible, and the deprivation of the freedom to act of the person in confinement does not necessarily need to be entirely taken place, and even if the freedom to act was permitted within a specific area under confinement, there is no complaint for the crime of confinement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do102, Mar. 24, 2000). (b) The original court and the party court have duly adopted and investigated the case.

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 3. 24. 선고 2000도102 판결

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.04.11 2017노3975

-서울남부지방법원 2020.11.17 2019노1990

-부산지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노2006

-대구지방법원 2013.11.29 2013노3068

-인천지방법원 2016.08.17 2016노49