logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.16 2018노553
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

1) In relation to the construction site managed by the victim MM, the Defendant did not have any false information, but did not have made any false information to the public official in charge of the construction site managed by the victim M, and there was no fact that the withdrawal of money from the joint Defendant A and the above victim did not have been offered, and there was no fact that the Defendant filed a civil petition with the public official in charge in relation to the construction site managed by the victim MV and received money from the victim P, but there was no fact that the Defendant received a civil petition from the public official in charge and that the victim received KRW 200,000,000 from the personnel level

Even if the above victim did not deliver money due to the threat of the defendant (Article 2). B. The sentence that the court below sentenced (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and 80 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant also asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

In addition to the following circumstances that can be seen in light of the records, such a determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

1) Not only is the fact that it was not confirmed at all whether the victim M had completed multiple students at the construction site managed by the victim M, but also, even if the defendant himself/herself could be confirmed through coverage at the above construction site, the defendant demanded confirmation of its content only to the public official in charge, not to stay at the above construction site.

(b).

arrow