logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.05.31 2016노579
재물손괴
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant did not have the intention to damage the property.

B. The Defendant’s act is a legitimate act, as the Defendant’s act remains in the real estate of this case by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of misunderstanding of facts refers to the intentional act of causing damage to property, knowing that the property, which is the object of damage, belongs to the ownership of another person, and predicting that the utility of the property, etc. is infringed as a result of his act.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., (i) G acquired ownership by fully paying the sale price in the voluntary auction procedure for the instant real estate on October 28, 2014 (see, e.g., 27 pages of the investigation record); (ii) the instant real estate was owned by the Defendant’s female E, and the Defendant was well aware of the successful bid of the instant real estate; and (iii) the Defendant had the intention to damage property on the entrance of the instant real estate, as shown below, in light of the fact that the instant real estate was occupied by seven holess at the entrance of the instant real estate as indicated below.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles 1) Defendant 1 acquired the ownership of the instant real estate by G on October 28, 2014, and thereafter possessed the instant real estate.

F. F. On January 14, 2015, upon delivery of the instant real estate on the G side, the entrance was destroyed to occupy the instant real estate again, and it will be examined whether the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act.

2) The phrase “act that does not contravene social norms” as prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it.

arrow