beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. At around 01:55 on December 14, 2015, Defendant C, along with D, deemed that the Plaintiff’s low-priced car driven by Defendant D while getting on and getting on a alleyway in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, was parked at the alley, and demanded the Plaintiff to take the vehicle out of the taxi and move the vehicle.
The defendant C moved in a vehicle that the plaintiff tried to get out of the place, and the defendant C was faced with the plaintiff's vehicle, and reported to 112, claiming that the plaintiff was faced with the plaintiff's vehicle, and the defendant D was fright to the plaintiff by making a statement to the police as if the plaintiff was in contact with the plaintiff although the plaintiff did not have received his taxi.
Afterwards, the Defendants and E received KRW 350,00 each from the husband B of the Plaintiff, who was frighted by the above report, on December 14, 2015, 05 to 08:00.
B. The above act constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict), Defendant C, and D received a summary order which imposes a fine of one million won each, and the above summary order becomes final and conclusive in the case of Defendant D. The Defendant C filed a request for formal trial against the above summary order on the ground of mistake of facts, but on June 1, 2017, was sentenced to the same judgment as the above summary order (Seoul Northern District Court 2016DaMa1803), and appealed against the above judgment, but on November 30, 2017, Defendant C’s appeal was dismissed (Seoul Northern District Court 2017No1239) and was dismissed (the same court 2017No1239), and the appeal was dismissed on February 23, 2018.
(Supreme Court Decision 2017Do21200). On the other hand, E is insignificant in relation to the degree of participation in a charge of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) due to the act described in the above paragraph (a), and it is considered that there is no fact that investigative agency has made a false and exaggerated statement.