2016Gohap254 Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Intimidation, etc.);

Interference with Business

○○ Kim (67 - 1), Electrical Construction Business

Seo-gu Incheon

Seo-gu Incheon District Office

Won-hee (Public Trial) (Public Prosecution) and Profit-making (Public Trial)

Attorney Park Young-young (National Assembly Line)

June 9, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Criminal facts

On November 27, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced by the Incheon District Court to imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business, etc. on November 27, 2015 and completed the enforcement of the said sentence on April 15, 2016.

The Defendant, who made a statement of the victim in relation to the above case subject to imprisonment with prison labor (56 years old), found him as a restaurant operated by the victims for the purpose of a fluenching and retaliationing the victim’s fluence (56 years old), as well as the victim’s fluence fluence (60 years old).

1. On April 15, 2016: around 30, the Defendant: “OOO operated by the said victim Kim Il-ro, Seo-gu, Incheon, Seo-gu, in the “OOO,” which was operated by the said victim Kim Il-ro,” and “I will find out whether the said victim would be able to properly engage in drinking at the breath funeral, and he will not engage in a spathn funeral, and he will not engage in a spathn funeral.

After all, the defendant, in relation to the investigation or trial of his or another criminal case, threatened the victim with the purpose of retaliation against the provision of a criminal investigation team such as a complaint or accusation, statement, testimony or submission of materials, and interfere with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2. On April 16, 2016: around 50: (a) around 50, the Defendant: (b) went to the instant restaurant, the victim Kim Il-young, and Park Il-○, “Pung-○,” and (c) did not go to the restaurant. This opening of the instant restaurant, whether to perform flachie, pinee funeral, and not to do so; and (d) the instant flachie, pine, and see hume and see hume.

In addition, the court made it possible to do so.

After all, the defendant, in relation to the investigation or trial of his or another criminal case, made intimidation to the victims for the purpose of retaliation against the provision, statement, testimony, or submission of materials, such as a complaint or accusation, and obstructed the restaurant business of the victims by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police with regard to gambling, ○ (including the part concerning Kim Man's statement);

1. Investigation report (a video recording image on the face of a crime, investigation of witnesses, and analysis of the contents of CCTVs);

1. Do image images to be cut;

1. Previous records: Criminal records, investigation reports (the judgment of a suspect, repeated crime and attachment of the same kind of judgment);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

Article 5-9(2) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of intimidation for the purpose of retaliation) and Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with each business)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment of the punishment prescribed in Article 2 of the Judgment on the Victims' Self-Governing Rights)

1. Selection of punishment;

Each decision on the crime of interference with business shall be made

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act [limited to the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act with respect to the crimes of retaliation against the Violation of each Act on Specific Crimes, etc.]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act / [the punishment and punishment shall be aggravated within the limit provided for in the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.) of the Victims Kim Il-young in Article 2 of the Judgment on the Punishment, etc

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period from one year to 50 years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) First offense: Interference with each service; and

[Determination of Type] Business Interference> Type 1 (Interference with Business)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: motive for committing a crime, and the same repeated crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Priority: Imprisonment with prison labor from one year to five years;

(b) Second offense: Violation of each Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Intimidation, etc.);

[Determination of Type 5] Intimidation (Intimidation for Retaliatory Purposes)

[Scope of the revised Recommendations] Basic Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years (Considering the minimum statutory penalty)

(c) The result of multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year to six years.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for one and half years; and

In particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that he/she had been punished several times due to the same kind of crime, such as interference with business, even though he/she had been punished several times, and repeats the instant crime during the period of repeated crime. In addition, the Defendant’s aforementioned crime constitutes an infringement of the legal interests and interests of the victims, as well as an act that may adversely affect the function of the criminal justice. In addition, it is necessary to punish the Defendant with severe punishment in that it constitutes an infringement of the legal interests of the victims.

However, the defendant's mistake is against his will and the defendant's age, character and conduct, occupation, environment, motive of crime and circumstances after crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing factors as shown in the arguments in this case.

Judge Long-term Judge;

Judge Lee Lee-soo

Judges Kim Jong-tae