logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.08 2015노614
협박
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, committed an act that seems to have been committed by the victim’s head; or (b) created a well-fashion bottle that “to interfere with the victim’s head.”

There is no time to say that “the murder may occur in the course of homicide”; or

The phrase “,” but this cannot be deemed as intimidation to the victim only on the last day of the period in which an stimulated appraisal was inferred.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of intimidation or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of intimidation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s judgment, based on its adopted evidence, based on the following: (a) considering the Defendant’s speech and behavior as stated in its reasoning; (b) the impression of the victim and witness at the time; and (c) the gender and physical strength of the Defendant and the victim; and (d) taking into account the relationship with the Defendant and the victim or the circumstances leading up to such speech and behavior, it is difficult to see that it is merely an indication of an emotional humiliation

The decision was determined.

B. The judgment of this court 1) In the crime of false intimidation, the expression of harm to an extent that would normally cause fear to a person by viewing it as a general element. As such, an intentional act as a subjective constituent element does not require an actor to actually realize or desire to realize the harm that the actor knew to such an extent that he knows, cites, and actually declared, but it is objectively evident that the actor’s speech or behavior is not merely an expression of a simple emotional expression or temporary union, and it is objectively evident that he/she has no intent to cause harm in light of surrounding circumstances, it cannot be acknowledged as a intimidation or intent, but it is determined whether there was an intent of intimidation or temporary union.

arrow