(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2016노2116 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2016노2116

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습공갈)

Text

The judgment below

Of those, the conviction against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.

(b).

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B and C were guilty of committing a crime of extortion with Defendant B and C, and Defendant B and C committed an attempted attack with Defendant A on a daily basis. Although Defendants A and C did not have conspired to commit a crime of extortion with Defendant A or participated in it, the lower court convicted of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant B: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service, 10 months of probation, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service, 160 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant A and C’s joint conflict and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A and C informed the victim P of harm and injury caused by language or behavior, thereby reconcing the victim P with KRW 700,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000) were sufficiently admitted as to

For the reasons that it is difficult to see that the above Defendants were acquitted, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The lower court’s respective sentence against the illegal Defendants in sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to Defendant B and C’s attempted conflict and attempted conflict is identical to the grounds for appeal in this part of this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion by stating in detail the argument and judgment of Defendant B and C under the title “judgment on Defendant B and C’s assertion” among the judgment below.

The judgment of the court below is recognized based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as follows.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.26 2018노1000

-대전지방법원 2017.05.18 2016노3663 (1)

-대구지방법원 2018.05.31 2017노1070

-수원지방법원 2017.01.18 2016노5371

-인천지방법원 2017.03.23 2016노4651