logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.09.05 2013노2443
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등협박)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: The crime of intimidation is not established on the ground that an act that seems to inflict harm on the victim M or did not give notice of harm.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the defendant was physically living in the violent organization prior to this case, and the defendant was able to use violence against players and their managers on the ground that he is violence assistance personnel, and the victim M was well aware of the above circumstances, although the defendant did not act or speak against the victim M, he was able to criticize and take a look at the victim who did not recruit the players. Thus, even if the defendant did not act or speak against the victim M, he was in a situation where he did not recruit the players, and the defendant was sufficiently promulgated in the court below's decision, and the defendant did not dispute this, the defendant was also guilty of this part of the facts charged, as it constitutes a crime of intimidation by itself, regardless of the seriousness of the case.

B. With regard to the nature of the crime of determining unreasonable sentencing or the fact of intimidation against the victim F who is the largest of the circumstances, the above victim was unable to punish the defendant, and the reason for intimidation to the victim J was to prevent the above victim from harming any further lectures by gambling with the defendant's players. As seen earlier, the defendant did not actively engage in speech and behavior against the victim M as seen earlier, and each of the intimidation in this case other than each of the intimidation in this case.

arrow