Judgement RPA 11.475: Prosecutor versus Mangole Babimunia In a statement made and registered at the Court's Registry on the 9th June 2006, Advocate Richard MALANGU, Lawyer at the Mbandaka Bar and holding special powers of attorney given to him by the convicted MANGOLE BADIMUNIA on the 8th June 2006, appealed, deeming it ill-advised, the judgement filed under R.P 8814, duly pronounced by the Court of First Instance of Kinshasa/Kalamu on the 16th May 2006, whom after having established on a material basis the offenses of extortion, sentenced to 3 years of imprisonment and to 7 years of imprisonment for the rape committed with violence, offenses awarded to the accused MANGOLE BADIMUNIA Aka KAFOK, having sentenced him cumulatively to 10 years of imprisonment with the admission of extenuating circumstances here mentioned, Deciding upon the civil complaint sentenced the above mentioned accused to paying the amount of 100.000 Congolese Francs in damages and interests suffered by the two victims and ordered the accused to return every extorted value taken during the affair; also sentenced the accused to pay the proceedings' fee within the legal deadline or face 7 days of detention. In the public hearing of 6th April 2007, the accused was voluntarily present having renounced the formalities of legal subpoena; The procedure is in conformity with the law; The accused maintains that the 1st Judge violated the imperative dispositions of the Penal Code in its articles 84 and 170; he adds that the offenses awarded to him - that after the reading of Mr. MATANDU's complaint, dated 24th November, consisted of a group of bandits that took 76 chairs, 6 cases of beer plus waste and another two plastic tables and cooling fans – when analyzed, he claimed, he never stole or obtained by force a single item belonging to another person; he concludes that the elements necessary to prove extortion are not gathered after the preparatory investigation and the pronounced judgement before the Court; Regarding the material element of extortion, he claims that the art of extortion is the act of obtaining something by force or any other means that exclude the free consent of the victim; In the present case, he claims, he never obtained 76 chairs, two plastic tables by force without the consent of the victim MATANDU, the complaint of the victim MATANDA (element I) deplores as well the loss of 6 beer cases plus waste and 70 glasses; he notes that he does not possess the physical capacity to obtain through violence all these goods from the victim MATANDU without his consent; he concludes that the Court shall find that the act of extortion does not exist and cannot hold him; Regarding the use of violence or threats, he holds that the victim MATANDU, in his letter of complaint (element 2 numbered and initialed) states in the following terms: after everyone fled, these youngsters took all the goods found in their way, namely plastic chairs, cellphones belonging to the clients that were present”; it shows that the victim does not mention any physical or bodily violence committed upon him, and even less so any physical restraint resulting in the removing of all the goods mentioned; he never committed a violent act or threats to steal all these goods that he could not transport due to the goods' weight, around 100kgs; Regarding the forced withholding of the bounty, the accused refutes the facts