(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.05.16 2018노249 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2018.05.16 2018노249

협박등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit any act of intimidation as described in paragraph (1) of the facts charged in the judgment, and the Defendant merely found labels at the victim’s house in relation to intrusion upon the residence described in paragraph (2) of the same Article, and thus does not constitute a intrusion upon residence.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of two million won)

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance trial was clearly erroneous in light of the spirit of substantial direct psychologicalism adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act (Article 1 of the facts charged) 1.

Except in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance judgment on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court by taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of the further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of pleadings, the appellate court shall respect the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court.

2) In the crime of intimidation, intimidation means, in general, notifying a person of harm and injury to the extent that it causes fears.

3) The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court.

On the other hand, the court below adopted each evidence including D's legal statement as well as D's legal statement, and found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

4) The lower court’s duly admitted and examined evidence and the Defendant’s message sent to and from the Defendant (on October 6, 2016, after the date of the instant intimidation, the victim sent to the Defendant a message that “the Defendant was frighted to find it before and after the date of the instant intimidation,” and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim and the situation at the time (the Defendant was unable to receive the down payment, so that the appraisal of the victim was not good, and the Defendant’s communication was sought.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.09.14 2018노1117

-부산고등법원 2018.11.14 2018노451

-청주지방법원 2021.01.15 2020노53

-대법원 2017.09.07 2017도8280

-전주지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노954