Defendant

Morse tin

Public-service advocates (Korean national vessels)

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. The facts charged in this case

The Defendant is the part of Nonindicted Party 1’s wife Nonindicted Party 1’s wife and Nonindicted Party 2’s wife. The Defendant was aware on July 20, 2009 that Nonindicted Party 1 would withdraw the cost of living on the grounds that Nonindicted Party 1 would remarkably fall short of the ability to resist due to disability on the part of Nonindicted Party 1, while having been paid the cost of living on or around every 20th day by the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s husband and wife, who is the disabled.

At around 11:00 on July 20, 200, the Defendant demanded to lend KRW 1.50,000 to Nonindicted Party 1 in Smarket near the bus terminal located in the Myeoncheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, to whom it was refused. However, the Defendant sent a shoulderer’s disease to Nonindicted Party 1, which is a dangerous object of defrating the disease that he was on his customer, and threatened Nonindicted Party 1 with the shoulderer’s disease, which is a dangerous object of defrating the disease that he was on his customer. In addition, Nonindicted Party 1 threatened Nonindicted Party 1 with a large sound called as “Yei, e.g., lending the money of spawn, and the delivery of the money to him,” and threatened Nonindicted Party 1 with any harm to his body if he did not comply with it.

Therefore, the Defendant received KRW 150,00 from Nonindicted 1, who received a 150,00 from the victim Nonindicted 1 by threatening the victim Nonindicted 1, who was a dangerous object.

2. Determination

Even if an aggravated punishment is imposed under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act by committing a crime of extortion carrying dangerous objects, such punishment is imposed only on the grounds of the method or means of conflict, and the nature of the crime of extortion under the Criminal Act is maintained as it is, and there is no express provision that excludes the application of Articles 354 and 328 of the Criminal Act concerning the cases of relatives, etc. under the above Acts, which are the special law, so Article 354 of the Criminal Act shall also be deemed to apply to the violation of Article 3(1) of the above special

However, according to the records, since the defendant can be acknowledged that he is a relative between the victim non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 3, the above crime constitutes a crime subject to victim's complaint which may be discussed only when the victim's complaint is filed pursuant to Articles 354 and 328 (2) of the Criminal Act. Since a written agreement that Non-indicted 1, the complainant after the prosecution of this case submitted to this court that expressed his intention not to punish the defendant, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Noh Jeong-ho