beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.24 2019노3817

재물손괴등

Text

The judgment below

Among the defendants A, B, and C, the number 2 to 6 of the list of crimes in the attached Table 2 to the decision of the court below.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A, B, and C1: (a) the damage and damage to the property indicated in the table of crime Nos. 1 as indicated in the judgment of the court below; (b) Defendant A did not have been involved in removing beer materials signboards, stairs labels, etc.; and (c) the signboard attached to the main pole was already removed without any objection from the victim G (hereinafter “victim”) around June 2019, unlike the entries in the facts charged, from June 2019; and (c) even so, the removal of the above signboard constitutes a legitimate act; and (d) even if the above defendants were not guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) As to the obstruction of another’s exercise of rights against Defendant C, among the facts charged in the instant case, ① the obstruction of another’s exercise of rights is an object of “the ownership of one’s own” in order to establish a obstruction of another’s exercise of rights. As to this part of the facts charged, one telephone phone of

(2) The Defendant C’s dental license is not owned by Defendant C, and thus, cannot be deemed as “self-made dental license” (hereinafter “instant dental license”).

(2) The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since the telephone of this case was delivered to the employee and the possession was transferred by the possessor, and thus, this part of the facts charged cannot be recognized. The court below convicted Defendant C. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles. 2) The sentence (the fine of KRW 1 million, the fine of KRW 70,000, the fine of KRW 700,000, the fine of KRW 800,000, the

(b)an erroneous determination of facts by the prosecutor;