beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
except that from the date of this judgment.
Reasons
【Judgment on Grounds for Appeal】
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to the conflict against the Defendant (the part of the crime: each official document: the changed trade name: G stock company; hereinafter “D”), there was no fact that the Defendant, who is the head of the headquarters for the operation of D, requested advertising fees or threatened the Defendant, to continuously post the negative articles about D if he did not comply with the request, and as to the conflict against K, there was no fact that the Defendant threatened K throughO and R, and the Defendant did not bring a civil action to force K, and thus, there was no criminal intent to inform K of the harm and injury, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of each of the above facts charged, respectively, and erred by misapprehending the facts.
B. It is recognized that the prosecutor (the attempted portion of the acquittal) demanded the head of the headquarters of the branch office of the D to pay advertising expenses to the Z, and that the AAB reporter in the AB reporter in the AB reporter in the AB who did not comply with the request to obtain information about D, coverage for two days, and urge the Z to publish coverage materials, and that the AB called “the defendant would pay advertising expenses” to the Z. In addition, according to the series of facts above, the court below acquitted the Z as to the facts charged, although the defendant notified the harm and injury as if the article unfavorable to D would be reported if the defendant did not comply with the request for advertising expenses.
2. The defendant's assertion of mistake of facts that the defendant's attack against D is the means of a crime of attacking judgment on D, and the threat refers to the threat of harm that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or obstruct the freedom of decision-making, and the threat of harm is sufficient if it does not necessarily require that it would be done by the method of specification, and it is sufficient to have the other party recognize that it would cause harm and harm by language or dynamic.