Whether Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act applies to crimes falling under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (negative)

Articles 2(1), 3(1), 283(3), and 284 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Hyun-gil

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008No521 Decided May 8, 2008

The final appeal is dismissed. The number of days of detention days after the final appeal, which remains after subtracting the number of days of detention included in the first instance court and that included in the original sentence from the number of days of detention included in the original sentence and the number of days included in the court, from

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

The grounds of appeal to the effect that the punishment is heavier than that of this case for which six months imprisonment was imposed cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by defense counsel

Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act provides only the crime of simple intimidation and the crime of special intimidation under the Criminal Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the express intent of the victim. Since Article 283(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act provides only the crime of special intimidation under Article 284 of the Criminal Act and the crime of special intimidation carrying dangerous objects, Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act cannot be applicable to the crime of intimidation under Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act. In Article 3(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., which applies to the defendant's act of intimidation in this case, a person who commits any of the crimes under Article 2(1) of the above Act by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous objects with the intent of an organization or group, or by showing the power under Article 283(3) of the above Act, it is interpreted that Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act does not apply to the application of Article 283(3) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do6316, May 198, 1998, 1998).

As alleged in the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law as to the application of the law on the crime of non-compliance with will, therefore, without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)