(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.7.17.선고 2015고합275 판결

On August 9, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months with prison labor for the crime of injury at the Busan District Court, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months on September 13, 2013, and on September 24, 2013, the same court was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and the said suspended sentence was invalidated due to the final judgment. On January 30, 2015, the enforcement of each of the said suspended sentence was completed

In addition, on June 18, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 500,000 as an assault at the Ulsan District Court on August 4, 2009, KRW 300,000,000 as a fine for the crime of causing property damage, etc. in Busan District Court on August 4, 2009, KRW 1 million as a crime of obstructing performance of official duties in the same court on May 9, 2013, KRW 50,000 as an assault in the same court on August 14, 2013, and KRW 1 million as an offense of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint injury) in the same court on September 10, 2013, respectively.

The defendant is a fluorial fluor who habitually assaults, threatens, or interferes with business against small-scale restaurant operators or residents in the vicinity of the Busan Northern Station.

1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intimidation) against Victims C, and violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.);

A. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (Habitual Intimidation) 1: around 06:0, without any reason prior to the ‘Ecafeteria operated in Busan Northern-dong, the victim C (M, 36 years of age)’. While putting the victim on his hand, the Defendant threatened the victim by acting as the victim at his hand. (2) On March 13:0, 2015, the Defendant accused the victim of sexual traffic at the Gopo Station located in the same Dong area at around 0:0, 00, 00, 000, 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000.).

4) The Defendant: around 00 on March 18, 2015, the lower court: (a) provided that the victim would not take a bath for be engaged in beer, and even after having received from the victim one disease of beer, the victim will take a bath to the victim; and (b) provided that the victim will take a bath; (c) the victim will take a bath; and (d) the victim will be given a notice of the disclosure of the call to the public.

C. C. H. M. H., acting as f., and threatening the victim, the Defendant threatened the victim. 5) On Apr. 11, 2015, the Defendant 11:00, 2015, hereinafter “the victim in front of the said E-cafeteria.”

A. C. C. H. H. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L. L.W.,

6) On April 15, 2015, the Defendant, at around 00:0, expressed a request for beer to the victim, but refused to do so, was the same year as “the victim was aware of only one disease of beer.” In doing so, the Defendant acting as her hand and threatened the victim.

7) On April 19, 2015, the Defendant, at around 00, expressed a request for the purchase of tobacco to the victim, but refused to sell tobacco to the victim. However, the Defendant, as soon as he/she would be able to do so, threatened the victim by acting in action.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually threatened the victim.

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

At around 30, May 10, 2015, the Defendant: F, before the Busan Northern Police Station, stated that the victim was suffering from her f's f, on the ground that she made a statement of damage to the above paragraph 1'a in Busan Northern Police Station, she would put her f, and her f, her f. her f. f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her f. her

Accordingly, the defendant threatened the victim for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of a criminal investigation report such as criminal complaint, statement, testimony or submission of data in connection with the investigation or trial of his criminal case.

2. Interference with business affairs of victims D;

A. On April 17, 2015, the Defendant, at around 00, obstructed the business affairs of the victim by force for about 30 minutes, including: (a) the Defendant, on the ground that he/she was threatened with the victim for the purpose of retaliationing the previous victim and obstructed the victim’s business; (b) but he/she did not have a sense of her name in favor of the victim on the ground that he/she did not respond to the victim; (c) the Defendant, on the ground that he/she did not respond to the victim.

B. On May 10, 2015, 09: (a) around 00, the Defendant: (b) obstructed the victim’s business by force, such as: (c) intending to attract customers under his/her name in front of the above Ecafeteria; and (d) intending to leave the floor on the floor by a simplified person owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Second-time protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including part concerning C and D)

1. Statement of each police statement related to C and D;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Residents' inquiry and criminal records, and each investigation report (Confirmation of the period of repeated crime A, the suspension of the execution of a suspect, the validity of an additional judgment, and the facts of judgment);

1. Habituality of judgment: Recognition of dampness in light of the records of each crime, the frequency of crimes, the frequency of crimes, and the repeated crimes of the same kind in the judgment;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Habitual Intimidation: Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act

Article 5-9(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act

○ Interference with Business: Article 314(1) of each Criminal Code (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and 42 (proviso) of the Criminal Act / [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

1. Reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, the proviso of Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year nor more than 50 years;

2. Scope of recommendations;

(a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Intimidation): Type 4 (Special Intimidation against Habitual Offense) is aggravated (from August to two years);

[Special Person] When committing a crime against an unspecified or large number of unspecified victims or repeatedly over a considerable period of time

(b) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.): Aggravation area (1 year to June 2) of Part V of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

[Special Persons who are in the Republic of Korea]. The crime of interference with business is the same repeated crime. The sentencing criteria are not set.

(d) The standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year (the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are not set are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so only the lower limit of the sentencing criteria for the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set shall prevail);

3. Determination of sentence;

In light of the fact that even though the defendant was released from the previous criminal act for the same kind of crime, the victims have been suffering from considerable severe severe pain, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to a sentence on the defendant in light of the fact that the victims have not been punished by imprisonment.

However, in the case of the crime of intimidation of this case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as the fact that the defendant does not continue to have a substantial harm to the victim, and that the defendant has a deep depth of his mistake.

Judges

The presiding judge's decoration of merit;

Judges Senior fixed-ranking

Judge Choi Jin-hun

Note tin

1) On September 13, 2013, the above one year imprisonment with prison labor in Busan District Court for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Definating, etc.)

B. A case on January 1, 2015 and 30. The execution of the sentence is completed; and the content thereof is “the defendant around June 21, 2013.”

Intimidation a victim on a brick, which is a dangerous object for the purpose of retaliation, on the ground that he/she reported his/her name to the police station.

In addition, by avoiding disturbance between about 20 minutes, the victim interfered with the business of the victim.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의9 제2항

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제2조 제1항 제1호