재물손괴
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant was not employed as a security guard at the management office of the “Yansan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Apartment Complex” around June 8, 2017, and the victim D (son, 34 years old) caused damage to the Defendant by lowering the market value equivalent to KRW 80,000 in glass of the entrance door managed by the victim D (son, 34 years old).
2. Determination
가. 피고인 및 변호인의 변소 요지 피고인이 관리사무소 건물 내 화장실을 다녀오다 관리사무소 출입문 앞에서 어깨가 아파 우산을 쥔 채 어깨를 돌리다 실수로 우산이 출입문 유리에 부딪혀 유리가 파손되었을 뿐 손괴의 고의가 없었다.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged as evidence by this court’s examination, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant intentionally damaged the entrance door glass, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
1) The Defendant consistently maintained the glass from investigative agencies to this court.
statement is made.
[Reports on Voluntary Appearance (Destruction of Property)] According to the records, the police officer first denied the suspicion as the police officer called the defendant.
Although it was found that the Defendant’s act was erroneous, and that the Defendant’s act was broken, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s intent of damage was also recognized.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to directly recognize that the defendant intentionally broken the glass.
2) The management and the head of C apartment management office, in this Court, D, inasmuch as the Defendant applied for the recruitment of security guards around June 2016 or before it, but has not been employed, it is well possible to do so, and it did not raise any objection to the appointment of himself.
was stated.
The defendant has set forth the entry in relation to the employment of security guards to employees of the management office.