재물손괴
1. The defendant is innocent. 2. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. On October 06, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 11:16, on the road of the victim D, which was located in Ssung, in the front of the said house, and (b) was thought by the victim of ordinary noise by setting up the joint board on the front road before the said house to obstruct neighbors’ traffic; (c) was at the front of the said house, the Defendant damaged another’s property by leaving the joint board inside the road before the said house, thereby leaving the victim’s house toward the front of the said house, thereby damaging the market price influences, flowers trees, etc.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to the damage of chemical parts is examined as to whether the Defendant damaged the chemical parts owned by the victim (hereinafter “the chemical parts of this case”) due to the act of putting the chemical parts on the joint board (hereinafter “the chemical parts of this case”), CCTV image extraction photographs, and CCTV images, the Defendant placed the chemical parts of this case on the inside the pent of D at the time when he moved the chemical parts of this case into D’s office pent, and the Defendant was found to have affixed the chemical parts of this case to D’s office pent, but it is recognized that the above chemical parts were broad, but the area was less than the size of the area, but rather than the interior of the chemical parts of this case, it is hard to prove that the chemical parts of this case were damaged by the Defendant’s act on May 10, 2018, not immediately after the occurrence or after the occurrence of the chemical parts of this case. In light of the evidence presented by the prosecutor, the evidence of this case was insufficient to prove the chemical parts of this case as witness.
B. In light of the following facts acknowledged by the Defendant’s partial statement, witness D’s legal statement, police statement protocol, accusation protocol, CCTV image (record 55 pages), and each written application, with respect to whether the Defendant damaged the flowers of D, it appears that the Defendant did not have any intention to damage the flowers at the time when the joint board was put into the D’s house, and there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant had the intention to damage property (the negligence may be recognized).