logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2013.11.15 2013고단1358
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등공갈)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person with no certain occupation, and there are many cases where the victim D (V, 54 years old)'s convenience points in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, would be able to ask credit and take a bath.

On September 29, 2013, at around 23:30 again, the Defendant found the above convenience store and rejected the demand of the victim to change one kind of tobacco per week and one kind of tobacco from credit to the victim after entering the above convenience store, as alcoholic beverages and tobacco from the table, which was installed along with a sorarara, to the outside of the entrance.

Accordingly, the Defendant returned to the outside table of the convenience store in which he performed alcohol, and then brought the Defendant’s house from the Defendant’s house for the purpose of cutting off the internal-use surgery, which is a dangerous object (total length: 2 cm, 12 cm: : 12 cm) that was carried on the said table, and expressed the transition to the victim by entering the above convenience store, showing the above transition as a part of the convenience store, and is not deemed to be a sprinkling year, Gabling year, Gabling year, and Gabling year. The Defendant said that he would not be subject to the imposition of tax in the light of the basic principle of taxation. In particular, the Defendant said that he saws tobacco

The Defendant, if the Defendant did not respond to the demand of the Defendant, tried to take property from the frighten victim by showing his attitude that would inflict bodily harm on the victim. However, the Defendant attempted to take property from the frighten victim. However, the Defendant did not go to the wind that other customers enter the convenience store, but did not go to the attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report and accompanying documents;

1. Articles 6, 3 (1) and 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, and Article 350 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant's assertion on probation, community service order, and order to attend a lecture under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case.

arrow