logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.28 2016노813
특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(공갈)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), a gold-type manufacturer for vehicle body, and the victim F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “victim Co., Ltd.”) is a company that supplies a “vehicle” to Hyundai Amcar (hereinafter referred to as “Amcar”).

If E supplies a straw paper produced upon request from the victim company, the victim company has produced the body with this gold paper, and then supplied it to the straw and the straw.

From June 2, 2014, the victim company agreed to produce the new car type "YP" from the car to the car and supply it to the car.

E around May 10, 2013, upon receiving a request for the manufacture of gold model from the victim company, the victim company agreed to supply three gold-types (one, two, and three gold-types) necessary for the manufacture of the body of the YP model up to May 12, 2014, and produced gold-types by consultation with the victim company and the person in charge of the vehicle of the YP.

The Defendant, by the agreed delivery date, failed to supply three gold-type cases to the victim company, failed to produce the "vehicle" and thus, caused fatal disruptions to the production plan and the production process and led the victim company to no longer be able to exist as a partner company of the vehicle, with the knowledge that it would be no longer possible for the victim company to be in existence as a partner company of the vehicle. In addition, the Defendant, with the knowledge of this fact, threatened the victim company with severe financial losses and requested large amounts of money.

On April 25, 2014, when the maturity of the last gold delivery was ten (10) days prior to the maturity of the Defendant, the Defendant unilaterally sought the victim’s company located at H at Sinti City, and the Defendant unilaterally delivered the Defendant with three copies of the document, “F-type capital (UB, KH, YD-2D, 4D, 5D, LF, YP) change and retroactive application (request), F-type additional demand (E), and F-type additional demand (F-type total amount of change expenses).”

arrow