폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. Summary of the facts charged
A. At around 20:00 on April 21, 2012, the Defendants jointly with H, and destroyed the joint-use locks of the above I members established by J at the upper part of the entrance door of the second floor of the said I church, and removed and destroyed the joint-use locks of the above I members in the first floor entrance by in a fireproof way.
B. On April 28, 2012, the Defendants jointly with H, removed the locks of the entrance door of the first floor destroyed as in the preceding paragraph from the J, and destroyed them by destroying them by breaking them on the floor of the removal, thereby destroying one locks equivalent to KRW 130,000,00 in the market price of the above members’ collective ownership. The Defendants removed and damaged them by removing the entrance door of the first floor from the first floor to the second floor of the above members’ collective ownership by a fire.
2. Defendants’ assertion ① was not present at the scene of each of the facts charged in the instant case, and there was no participation in the Defendants’ assertion. ② Defendant A and C did not replace the locks as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, but it was true that the Defendants replaced the locks, such as Defendant A and C, but this was a lawful management of church properties, and it did not constitute a requisite element of a church property, or was a lawful act, or committed such crime at that time and place as indicated in
3. Determination
A. As evidence corresponding to the judgment on Defendant B, the J’s statements and photographs (No. 17) are made at the investigative agency and this court.
However, the J’s statements in the investigative agency and in this court are the same as that of “B having been done,” and the Defendants’ statements are merely a inferred statement that “B would have been instructed because of their actions.” While the above pictures contain Defendant B’s form, there is no evidence to deem that the above pictures were prior to the date stated in the facts charged, but all the Defendants consistently stated that “B was not on the spot.”