logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.04.24 2019노419
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복협박등)
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc. on January 17, 2019), the facts charged were sufficiently proven according to the statements, etc. of the victim and witness investigative agency. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the victim and witness of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the victim and witness’s legal statement was not specific or different from the contents of the statement in the investigative agency. This judgment of the lower court is erroneous in matters of misunderstanding of facts. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment, three years of suspended sentence, and probation) is unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s punishment is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant: (b) reported the Defendant’s drunk driving and received a judgment; (c) on January 17, 2019, at around 15:30, the Defendant made intimidation to the victim, such as “Elaundry” by finding the victim at the “Elaundry site” located in D at Sinung-si; and (d) 10, she would not keep the victim from her laund with the degree of 10; and (c) her laund with the Defendant’s laund with the intention of retaliationing the provision of the investigation team in relation to the investigation or trial of his criminal case. Accordingly, the lower court acquitted the Defendant for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of the investigation team. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted by the prosecutor, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant was threatened as stated in the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to find this otherwise.

① The victim only stated in the court of the court below that “at the time the defendant took a bath and takes a sound, and that there was no special conversation.”

arrow