logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.06.23 2017노402
대부업등의등록및금융이용자보호에관한법률위반등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of facts (the crime of obstructing and injuring each business affair as indicated in the judgment of the court below) and obstructing each business affair as indicated in the judgment of the court below, although the Defendant was written at each restaurant of the victim D and G operation to receive money borrowed, the Defendant did not interfere with the restaurant business by taking a bath or smoking, etc.

B) As to the crime of injury in the decision of the court below, the defendant sought a restaurant for the operation of the victim F to receive money from the defendant, and the victim was assaulted by the above victim in the course of the actual ditch, and there was no injury to the victim.

2) The lower court’s sentence (an amount of KRW 5 million) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged in this part, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the degree of probative value or credibility of each statement determined by the investigative agency based on the witness examination of the relevant persons who have observed the degree of direct statement, and the content of the statement prepared by the investigative agency in the Republic of Korea; and (b) the content of the reply to the fact that the first instance court conducted with the P Hospital for the purpose of viewing the credibility or injury of F, and the degree of credibility or injury of F.

B. 1) In the context of interference with the business of the relevant legal principles as indicated in the judgment of the court below, “power” refers to all forces capable of suppressing and confusioning a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible or intangible, and includes pressure by social, economic, political status and royalty, as well as assault and intimidation, and it does not require actual suppression of the victim’s free will by force, and it does not require actual suppression of the victim’s freedom. The establishment of interference with business affairs does not require the result of interference.

arrow