beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.20 2015고정73

재물손괴

Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:00 on July 2, 2014, the Defendant damaged the wall owned by the victim E, which is installed on the boundary of the Ftel owned by the neighboring victim and the Dtel, by using the network, etc., on the ground that the drainage of the Dtel owned by the Defendant is not carried out at the parking lot located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation report (in a case where there is a change in the state of an object contrary to the interests of the owner, and according to each evidence in the judgment, it is reasonable to view that the victim has excavated a hole of brickd into the wall in the judgment, but has re-expling it as stated in the judgment, which would result in a change in the state contrary to the interests of the victim and has impaired the utility of the wall in the judgment)

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is in a situation where a large amount of rain was predicted at the time of the crime in the judgment, and thus, it is not sufficient to recognize that there was danger of building collapse at the time only by the materials submitted by the defendant, as it constitutes an emergency evacuation since it is necessary to prevent the danger of building collapse. In addition, the above assertion is not accepted as long as it is difficult to recognize that there was a considerable period of time after the defendant purchased the officetels in the judgment, and it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's act of unilaterally drilling the door to the wall in light of its means and method, etc.