(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.05.16 2018노3587 | 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) 인천지방법원 2019.05.16 2018노3587

업무상횡령등

Text

The judgment below

The acquittal part against the guilty part and the coercion against the victim C shall be reversed.

Defendant .

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the charges of coercion, although the defendant by mistake of facts, who received money from the victim B or C by intimidation, constitutes a crime of coercion.

Dob. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 4,500,000 won) is too unhued and unjust.

B. (1) The Defendant does not constitute a crime of coercion, inasmuch as the Defendant recommended the victims to pay the village development fund, and did not receive the money by intimidation.

See The defendant has not voluntarily paid his/her fine in the village funds.

In addition, the defendant's use of the general revenue cost and the refund of the village development fund from the water rate account is a legitimate act.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. In light of the following facts admitted by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below concerning the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, it is recognized that the defendant received money in the name of the Village Development Fund by threatening victims.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of coercion is just, and the defendant's assertion of mistake is not justified.

(1) The defendant asserts that the village development fund has been received from residents in accordance with the village regulations.

However, in light of the developments leading up to the enactment of the rules of the Do Residents' Association, it is difficult to see that the said rules are valid.

In addition, even if the rules of the Do Residents' Association are valid, the above rules only stipulate that "the person who has registered as a resident in D and has paid the development fund determined by the Committee" shall be deemed residents, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the victims are liable to pay the development fund in accordance with the above rules.

(2) In cases of staying home, one million won of the development fund, and those in other areas, shall be considered as residents living home.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2016.10.20 2016고단871

-울산지방법원 2019.10.10 2018노955

-창원지방법원 2013.05.10 2012고단791

-서울고등법원 2020.11.19 2020노781

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.08.20 2015노232