beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.06.28 2017고정815

재물손괴등

Text

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B As the representative of the (State)C, a person constructing the studio building called “E” in Busan Jung-gu, and the victim F is the owner of the first underground floor in Busan Jung-gu and the fourth floor above the ground.

Defendant

B Although the construction of “E” was completed, the injured party demanded several times to remove the boiler room door and the vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetables.

However, when the victim demanded excessive money in return for the removal, the victim destroyed the boiler room entrance without the victim's consent, and intruded into the boiler, and ordered the defendant A to remove the hullum.

On September 11, 2016, at around 14:20, Defendant A removed aluminium doors installed between the above victim’s building and Defendant B’s new building, using piracy machines in the market price, which is the victim’s ownership. In that way, Defendant A intruded into the victim’s market, and then damaged Defendant A’s market price with refrosion (270 cm in length, 104 cm in height, 12 cm in width).

Accordingly, Defendant A infringed upon the victim’s residence, thereby damaging the victim’s property, and Defendant B instigated the above crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Statement made by the police with respect to F;

1. Police investigation report (Attachment, etc. of photographs);

1. 17 copies of photographs and CCTV image printed materials [Defendant A merely knew of the ownership relationship of the entrance of this case and dulled rice, etc.]. As such, Defendant A asserted to the effect that there was no intent to infringe upon residence and damage property. Thus, when considering the location of dulled rice, entrance and exit, the situation at the time of removal, etc., recognized by each evidence of the judgment, it was viewed as follows.