beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.01.19 2016고정1119

재물손괴

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant, as the representative director of the corporation B on August 31, 2015, is a person who leased and used the second floor of the E-factory buildings and business affairs among the three factories owned by the victim D Co., Ltd. located in Gwangju North-gu, Gwangju.

On September 23, 2015, at around 09:00, the Defendant destroyed by removing and disposing of the amount equivalent to KRW 10,062,50 of the market price of the one-time period owned by the victim at the above factory E-site, which was installed on the outer wall of the factory E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Copy of the minutes;

1. A written agreement;

1. A mechanical sale contract;

1. A detailed statement of goods sold for used machines;

1. Investigative report (Attachment of minutes sent by e-mail by an accused agent);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the photofics and photographs of our house owned by the removal or theft sale without permission;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

1. The defendant's assertion and determination as to Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse

1. On August 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) purchased all of the machinery and equipment installed on the first floor of the foregoing factory on the part of the victim on August 13, 2015; (b) was connected with the first floor machinery; and (c) thus, the instant equipment was owned by the Defendant as purchased from the injured party.

Even if the term of the instant house is excluded from the machinery purchased from the damaged party, in light of the above circumstances, the Defendant was aware of the term of the instant house at the time of removal of the instant house, and thus, there was no intention to commit damage.

2. Determination

A. According to the record, the Defendant’s agreement on August 13, 2015 prepared by the victim (record 39 pages) is to purchase all the machinery and equipment installed on the first floor of the above factory from the injured party (the machinery and equipment installed on the top of the above factory).