(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2014.10.30 2014고정598

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2014.10.30 2014고정598

주거침입

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 2, 2013, the Defendant laid off the entrance correction devices of the Etel No. 702 owned by the victim D in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and intruded into another’s structure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Photographs of the entrance door 702;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Presentation of Materials by a complainant);

1. Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant, as the owner of the instant officetel, did not receive the construction cost from D, and concluded a sales contract for the instant officetel and paid the amount equivalent to the purchase price. As such, the Defendant, as the lien holder and purchaser, had a legitimate title to possess the instant officetel 702.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant entered into a sales contract with the representative director G (the State) to purchase all of the instant officetels from D on September 5, 2012, and on September 21, 2012, the defendant was issued a power of delegation with D to delegate all legal authority, such as management, lease, and name of the instant officetel from D. However, although the defendant was found to have received a power of delegation with D on September 21, 2012, the defendant asserted the right of retention for the instant officetel on the ground that he did not receive the construction cost from D and was punished for property damage and residential intrusion because the right of retention was not recognized, and the dispute was pending for several years with the F, claiming that he was delegated the authority of building management by asserting the claim against D, and that the contract was concluded with G (State).

참조조문

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.02.05 2014노4025

-부산지방법원 2014.01.24 2013노3277

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2013.09.26 2012고정93

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.13 2016고단6470

-의정부지방법원 2014.01.08 2013가합71248