beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant is acquitted.
Reasons
Defendant’s summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) is only replaced with an already destroyed locking device while exercising the right of retention on the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon District Office 202 multi-family house 202 (hereinafter “the above multi-family house”, 202, hereinafter “instant room”) at the time of the instant case, and it does not constitute damage, and even if it falls under damage, it does not constitute tort as a self-help. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.
Although the defendant's possession of the room of this case constitutes an illegal possession, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
The sentence of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (fine 300,000) is too unhued and unreasonable.
Judgment
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to whether the defendant's assertion constitutes the elements of a judgment, the fact that the defendant arbitrarily replaced the locking device installed by the victim D as stated in this part of the facts charged is recognized, and no other material exists to prove that the locking device was already damaged before the replacement of the defendant. Thus, the defendant has impaired its utility by replacing the locking device of the room of this case. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below as to whether the defendant was aware of illegality as a self-help act by the lien holder, or whether the defendant was the lien holder of the room in this case, i.e., the building in this case around January 30, 208.