logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.07.19 2016고단1625
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict), Defendant C, and Defendant C agreed to purchase and sell heavy cell phones, and C posted a letter to the effect that a cell phone is purchased through a smartphone-fluoring circuit, and the Defendant prepared funds to purchase the cell phone and conspired to take advantage of the victim D (17 years old), victim E (17 years old), and victim F (17 years old) by reporting the above writing at a coffee shop where it is difficult to know the trade name near the building area located in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoyang-dong, around January 13, 2016.

Therefore, C must look at the victims from the prison when the victims have stolen the cell phone for two years.

Whether or not other enterprisers have contacted.

“........ the Defendant “.........”

The other side is that if a tin-opener moves to the tin, he will leave the tin, and he will also have his cell phone cut off.

Shees are also unable to report stolen objects.

"......" On the other hand, C continues to receive the prize even after reporting to the police of Korea.

“The victims were frightened.”

The Defendant, in collaboration with C, was jointly delivered 21 mobile phones worth 18,585,90 won in total at the market price from the victims of drinking, which were frightened.

2. On May 14, 2016, the Defendant acquired stolen goods after purchasing them respectively from four taxi engineers, whose name is unknown, in the street near the H coffee shop in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, from four passengers, who were unable to know about their names, known that their four mobile phone prices were embezzledly taken on a taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's person;

arrow