logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노4578
특수협박
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant does not have any fact in the future of the victim D's vehicle or infusing the victim's vehicle in the cargo lane of the defendant. Thus, the charges of threatening the victim by driving the cargo in a sudden way cannot be acknowledged.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant: (a) did not turn the direction, etc. in advance, and entered the direction direction, etc. at the same time with the dynasium, even though the distance from entering the next two-lanes of the victim D drivers, which was proceeding along the two-lanes in the tunnel of the expressway in the south Sea by the Defendant; (b) later, the Defendant was driving the victim’s vehicle on the victim’s side while the victim was proceeding along the two-lanes; (c) the Defendant was rapidly pushed the victim’s vehicle toward the victim’s vehicle where the victim was proceeding along the two-lanes; (d) the victim’s direction, etc. turns on or took hand the direction, etc. of the damaged vehicle; and (e) the victim’s walked from the side of the victim’s vehicle.

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, the facts charged that the defendant threatened the victim by using the cargo vehicle, which is a dangerous thing, can be fully recognized.

B. On the other hand, the defendant thought that the victim's vehicle will enter an expressway (IC) at the point where the victim's vehicle passes the quarter, and did not regard the victim's vehicle in the next lane.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant changed the vehicle from the rear side of the victim's vehicle to the latter side of the victim's vehicle and changed the vehicle to the latter side of the victim's vehicle immediately after the latter side, and tried to change the vehicle to the latter into a two-lane without regard the victim's vehicle.

arrow