(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노1716

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노1716

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동협박)등

Text

Defendant

All appeals filed by A and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Defendant A did not have any intention of intimidation, did not notify the piracy, and the victims did not feel out of the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, Defendant A made joint intimidation and intimidation to victims.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court against Defendant A, which was unfair in sentencing, is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s each sentence (a fine of KRW 5 million) declared by the lower court against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of intimidation as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the content of harm and injury notified must be sufficient to cause fear to a person generally in light of various circumstances before and after the act committed, including the relation between the perpetrator and the other party, surrounding circumstances at the time of notification, relationship between the offender and the other party, etc., and relationship between the third party and the offender. However, if the third party was notified of harm and injury by a third party, it does not require the other party to feel feel realistically, and as long as the other party knew its meaning by notifying the harm and injury, the elements of the crime are satisfied regardless of whether the other party realistically caused fear, and it should be interpreted that the crime of intimidation is committed (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do606 delivered on September 28, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, considering the content of the statement made by the victim of the victim, the relation between the victim and the victim at the time of the act and the harm and injury, the victim’s perception of the harm and injury were also known to the victim.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see Defendant A.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 9. 28. 선고 2007도606 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.08.23 2017노240 (1)

-춘천지방법원 2013.07.17 2012노889

-수원지방법원 2019.08.30 2019노1906

-인천지방법원 2013.07.05 2013노1259

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.31 2016노486