beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. An attempted attempt to commit an offense by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on September 2013 is merely a re-written statement of cash custody that the victims had already prepared and provided to the defendant before the occurrence, and thus, it is based on a legitimate right. Thus, the mere fact that the victims demanded the preparation of such a document does not constitute an attempted offense. The mere fact that the attempted attempt to commit an offense by assault was prepared by the victim at the time of preparation of a cash custody certificate, and there was no assault and threat, and thus, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of attempted assault
B. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 4 million won) is too unreasonable, even if not, on the other hand, unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Intimidation as a means of a crime of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles refers to the threat of harm and injury that is likely to be hot enough to restrict the freedom of decision-making or interfere with the freedom of decision-making, and the threat of harm and injury is sufficient if it does not necessarily require the method of specification, and if it is sufficient to have the other party aware that it would cause harm and injury to the other party by language or fashion. Also, even if it is not directly, it may be indirectly made through a third party other than the fashion. In cases where an actor demands the delivery of property or profit on property by using illegal perjury based on his occupation, status, etc., and the other party does not comply with such demand, and where it causes the above-mentioned judgment that there is a risk of unfair disadvantage, it shall also be a threat of harm and injury (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do709, May 13, 2003).
Even if a right is exercised, it is hard to accept beyond the permissible level and scope of social norms.