logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.07.20 2017고단2132
재물손괴등
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 7, 2016, the Defendant entered into a subcontract of KRW 36,00,000 of construction amount with respect to the construction project in Daegu-gun, Inc.

1. On December 10, 2016, around 12:30, the Defendant damaged the victim’s outer wall of the construction site in order to pay the construction cost to the victim E, who is the management director of the LAB, at the construction site of Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, and the management director of the LAB, but the victim refused to pay the construction cost. However, the victim’s refusal was made by using a red-chroman frame on the outer wall of the construction site in the form of “the site of the facility loss” with a red-chroman frame on the outer wall of the construction site.

2. On December 21, 2016, from around December 22, 2016 to around Daegu, the Defendant: (a) made phone calls using Defendant’s mobile phone at the victim F’s president of the KUB and the management director of the BUB in the bank for the settlement of disputes via his mobile phone; and (b) obstructed the victims’ work site management by transmitting text messages over 193 times to the victims, by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to E and G;

1. A complaint filed by E;

1. A certificate of medical treatment;

1. One copy of the investigation report (Attachment of a written estimate), investigation report (combined of a written complaint), investigation report (change of the victim G injury and the name of the crime), investigation report (name of the victim), and telephone and text message sent by the victim to the victims, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (verification of suspect call records related to interference with business);

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines for crimes;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Provisional Payment Order recognized the Defendant’s mistake and reflects his fault, and the Defendant agreed with the victims in whole.

arrow