(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017노2061

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017노2061

협박

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) recognizes that the Defendant made a statement of harm to the victims as to how to cause fears by the victims in light of the age of the Defendant and the victims, and the relationship between the victims, even if the Defendant and the victims were to talk with the victims of domestic affairs, etc., the Defendant notified the victims of harm and injury to the extent that it may cause fears.

Although it is reasonable to see that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant, at around 15:00 on July 8, 2016, told the victims C (the 70 years of age), victim D (the 68 years of age), and waste in the same parking lot of building B in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building E; (b) as if he were able to take the face of the victims by using the polybromos presse frame brought in his hand while having a dispute.

The victims were threatened by the victims, "I", and the victims were threatened.

B. According to the records of the judgment of the court below, ① the Defendant and C live in the same Ba, and there was a dispute over the matter of dumping waste in front of the center of the first floor prior to the instant case, ② the Defendant, D, and E dialogueed on the first floor parking lot on the instant day, but C was set back on the first floor, and thereafter the Defendant and C re-consting a horse match due to garbage problems, ③ while they were in a horse match with C, as shown in the facts charged,

D, E (hereinafter “C, etc.”) stating that the Defendant would be able to write down, “C, etc.,” and said, “C, D, and E (hereinafter “C, etc.”) would not bring about the Defendant.”

(4) The Defendant and C have expressed their desire to each other while continuing a dispute, but there is no other’s desire to give C et al. to the effect that the Defendant is c et al., except in the following cases:

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.20 2017고정554

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.19 2014고정4952

-대구지방법원 포항지원 2016.06.29 2016고정79

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.27 2020노1182

-서울서부지방법원 2018.12.19 2018고정947