logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.26 2017노4248
주거침입등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of a fine of KRW 3 million imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) sufficiently recognizes the fact that the defendant damaged the floor of concrete marina in the victim’s residence by using sea money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On October 4, 2016, from around 08:44 to around 18:31 of the same day, the Defendant conspired with C in collusion with the victim E’s dwelling located in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, destroyed the floor of concrete marina up to about 95cm in width and about 10 meters in length by using static and large tidal money without any justifiable procedure, and damaged the math floor where the market price cannot be known by selling soil under his/her supervision.

2) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant merely sold soil on the side of the floor in which the Defendant contained concrete in the victim’s house, and that the Defendant damaged the concrete marina floor in the victim’s residence or damaged the soil part in the victim’s house by using large piracy, or that it owned the victim’s soil part, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges.

B) Further, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below acknowledged that part of the concrete marina floor was destroyed at the victim's residence (Evidence Nos. 3, 20 pages). Meanwhile, according to the records of this case, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s shot up with soil by inserting, but it is located at the victim’s residence (CCTV video) and the victim’s residence.

arrow