(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.05.15 2013고합150

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) 인천지방법원 2013.05.15 2013고합150

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복범죄등)

Text

The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged [criminal record] The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for five years and a fine of three hundred thousand won for murder, etc. at the Incheon District Court on November 29, 2007, and the execution of the sentence was completed by the Seoul Southern Prison on February 20, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant tried to inflict harm on the victim of murdering or attempted crime (the 59 years of age) who explained all the above facts at the time of the investigation of the instant case, on the ground that C (the 59 years of age) was sentenced to an excessive sentence by making a statement as the victim at the time of the investigation of the instant case.

On March 8, 2013, at around 16:13, the Defendant unilaterally cut off the victim from E in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon. On the same day, at around 16:44, and around 16:47, the Defendant sought direct recovery of the victim as the victim did not receive all of the victims.

At around 17:00 on March 8, 2013, the Defendant: “Around 17:00, the Defendant found the victim’s door-to-face operated by the victim in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and threatened the victim “I would have agreed at that time, but would not be able to agree. I would be able to die.”

As such, the Defendant threatened the victim with the purpose of retaliation against the Defendant’s criminal investigation and statement related to his criminal case.

2. Although the Defendant’s vindication made a statement to the effect that the victim had been living for a long time in prison because the victim did not reach an agreement with the victim during the conversation, it was only an expression of the victim’s inherent desire and interference with the victim, and there is no fact of notifying the harm such as the statement in the facts charged. Even if the Defendant made a statement such as the statement in domestic affairs and facts charged, there was no purpose of retaliation against the victim.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether intimidation, such as the facts charged, was made, the witness C and F’s legal and investigative agencies, and CCTV.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2013.08.14 2013노1816

-인천지방법원 2013.10.23 2013고합554

-대전지방법원 2019.09.20 2019고합240

-수원지방법원 2015.04.02 2014고합691

-제주지방법원 2015.03.26 2014고합198