재물손괴
The judgment below
On April 201, 201, the part concerning the damage to property is reversed.
The sentence of the defendant shall be pronounced.
1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal is obvious that the defendant damaged the victim's seat, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. (1) On April 201, 201, the lower court determined that the Defendant reported to the police by the Defendant on the damage of property to a police officer (1) on the ground that the Defendant, on April 4, 2012, 201, was the first police officer of the first time of the investigation, and the Defendant consistently reported to the police by the victim’s report. However, on April 201, the time when the Defendant was the first time of the investigation, and was the first time of the Defendant’s dispatch, was the first time of the first time of the investigation, and the first time of the Defendant’s destruction of property to a police officer at the time of the victim’s report, was an excessive 201 years, and the time of sending the witness E, a police officer dispatched to the scene by the victim’s report, was 201 years, and there were many tracess of the country of the Defendant’s statement and the facts leading to the victim’s complaint in light of the fact that the Defendant’s statement and the circumstances leading to the victim’s complaint in this case were difficult to be acquitted.
(2) 당심의 판단 그러나 원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하면, 피고인은 최초 경찰 조사시부터 당심에 이르기까지 일관되게 2011. 4. 초순경 피해자의 도라지 밭에 가서 도라지 몇 포기를 발로 밟은 사실이 있음을 인정한 점, 피고인의 남편인 F 또한 최초 경찰 조사시부터 원심 법정에 이르기까지 일관되게 당시 피고인이 속이 상해서 도라지 몇 개를 발로 밟고 왔다는 이야기를 들었다는 취지의 진술을 한 점, 피해자의 신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 경찰관인 원심 증인 E는 '도라지 밭에 신발 자국이 많았는데, 어떤 도라지는 밟아서 순이 문드러진 것도 있었고, 순이 올라온 도라지를 발로 찼는지...