logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.31 2013노2050
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant E and Defendant E shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

E 1,000,000 won, Defendant A.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant E (1) misunderstanding of facts does not appear at the scene of the instant facts charged, but the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts found guilty and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (2) Even if the lower court found the Defendant E guilty, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant criminal act and the present situation where the said Defendant was faced, the lower court’s sentence against the said Defendant (fine 2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the developments leading up to Defendant A to the instant crime and the present situation where Defendant A was faced with, the sentence of the lower court against the said Defendant (a fine of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

C. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the above facts charged without examining the witness although one of the injured partiesO on this part of the facts charged was entitled to summon him as a witness as R, and the court below erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination:

A. Defendant E1), based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, stated that the victim L was “A, Defendant E, and three persons affiliated with the scopic wave found to have been frighted for three hours and 3 hours” at the police station, and the court of the court of the court below also stated that “C would not have been frightly memory, but I would like to say that C would not have to find the witness at the time when the victim threatened the above victim and have to have been frighted for three hours.” (The statement is consistent and credibility in the important part of the trial record No. 138 of the trial record, and ② The victim’s N was in the room where the police statement was made by the victim in the police station.”

arrow