재물손괴
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) 1’s misunderstanding of the legal principles does not merely harm the vehicle’s utility, and the lower court recognized it as constituting property damage. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on property damage, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Even if the Defendant’s conviction is recognized, in light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence (one million won per fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
B. A prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the part not guilty in the grounds of appeal), the CCTV screen that the prosecution submitted as evidence on this part had been taken by the same head of the vehicle by approaching the front of the vehicle and destroying the vehicle. However, the lower court rendered a verdict not guilty of this part of the facts charged by erroneous determination that the Defendant’s return to the seat of the vehicle was taken, thereby making it erroneous. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the above facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In light of the nature of the crime of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s attitude, etc., of the crime of this case, and the Defendant’s sentence, the sentence against
2. Determination:
A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of causing property damage under Article 366 of the Criminal Act is established when the property of another person is damaged or concealed, or is detrimental to its utility by other means. Here, the term “conscising the utility of property” refers, in fact, to make the property in a state in which it cannot be used for its original purpose. It includes temporarily converting the property into a state in which it cannot be used (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1345, Jul. 28, 1992; 93Do2701, Dec. 7, 1993; 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007).