2014No2303 Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation by groups, deadly weapons, etc.)

A

Prosecutor

Courtrooms (prosecutions) and Kim Jin-young (Trial)

Attorney Seo Jong-il

Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Ma441 Decided July 31, 2014

May 15, 2015

The lower judgment is reversed. The Defendant is not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although it is sufficiently possible to threaten the victim by throwing a dangerous glass name on the floor, putting the victim's arms out of the office, etc., the court below accepted only the defendant's assertion and acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for amendments to the bill of amendment to the contents of "the prosecutor laid off glass bottles, which are dangerous objects on the tables, laid on the floor, broken down the victim's body, and threatened the victim as if he would inflict any harm on the victim's body." "The prosecutor applied for amendments to the bill of amendment to the contents of "the prosecutor applied for amendments to the bill of amendment to the contents of "the victim's body is frightened and threatened the victim by putting the victim's arms on the floor, putting the dangerous objects on the tables, and putting the victim's arms out of the above office." Since this court permitted this and changed the subject of the judgment, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained. The prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of the court of fact-finding even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, and

B. Summary of the revised facts charged

*** University**, on February 3, 2014, No. 15:00, on the floor, the Defendant served as a professor** University** University*, on the part of the office* Department*, on the part of the victim, on the part of the teaching staff, the victim ○○○ (n, 22 years old) visiting the teaching staff for the teaching staff, and on the part of the victim, on the part of the teaching staff, the victim cannot be recognized as teaching staff, without reflecting his opinion, and on the part of the victim, the Defendant threatened the victim, on the floor, of a glass bottle, which is a dangerous object on the table, by cutting down the victim’s arms and frighting out of the above office. The judgment of the court below was made. The decision of the court below, on the part of the victim, intimidationd the victim to cause harm to the body of the victim.

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant’s above act is merely an indication of the Defendant’s temporary decentralization, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the victim and Kim*, is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s intent of intimidation or intimidation, solely on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, as follows: (a) the Defendant’s act is merely merely an indication of the Defendant’s temporary decentralization; and (b) it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intent of intimidation or intimidation.

① The Defendant, while disregarding his opinion at the time, was selected as a teaching assistant by the head of the department* the head of the department and the owner knew that he recommended the victim as a teaching assistant, who did not notify himself of the fact.

② The Defendant entered the department and office, while dialogueing with Kim***, Kim*, was pushed ahead with the idea that Kim* was making a false statement, and was put on the floor of a glass path due to the failure to attend the conversation. ③ At the time Kim** Kim*, while the victim was not protruding away from the inside side of the book, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was a glass bottled against the victim from the beginning, or that the victim was suffering from a glass disease with the intention to make the victim protruding away from the beginning, and the victim also stated that the Defendant was a glass disease and had no intention to go against himself.

④ The Defendant, upon the recommendation of state**, had a good appraisal about the Defendant: (a) had an impact on the victim who was dissatisfyed with the recommendation of state*; and (b) made the victim’s strong fishing and satisfed voice; (c) the purport was that the victim “I cannot recognize width as a teaching bridge; and (d) did not make a specific statement that the victim would incur any danger unless I am.

5. The Defendant did not engage in any conduct leading the victim to take the arms of the victim who did not continue to leave the department and office, and did not engage in any harm.

6. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant followed the victim’s dynamic behavior.

D. Judgment of the court below

1) Examining the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below in comparison with records, the fact-finding and determination by the court below is justified, and there is no illegality that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

2) Furthermore, as to the facts charged that the facts charged were modified by permitting the prosecutor's application for changes of indictment, that is, the defendant's act of threatening the victim by taking the victim's arms out of the office, the judgment of the court below is still applied to this part of the facts charged as well. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant was taking the victim's arms out of the office and taken out the office, but in light of the above circumstances cited by the court below, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act of the defendant outside the office that does not hear the defendant's words called the office's office, and it is not a mere emotional or temporary decentralization indication that is acceptable by social norms, and it is not a mere emotional expression or temporary decentralization.

3. Conclusion

A. Although the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is again decided after pleading.

B. The summary of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is the same as the above "2.b." and as stated in the above "2.d.", it constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge;

Judges Yang Ho-young

Judges Secretary-General;