beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The food and television gramocons that the defendant destroyed by mistake of facts are owned by the defendant with the goods purchased by the defendant with his own money.
Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the premise that the said articles are owned by the victim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. It is reasonable to view that the household effects, etc. provided in a judgment of mistake of facts are co-ownership of the married couple even if they were purchased by revenue or assets of either side of the married couple, and the same applies to the case of a married couple in a de facto marital relationship.
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant and the victim were dead from around 2009 to August 2013 and were living together with the victim's house for a certain period. At the time of the crime of this case, the defendant visited 3 to 4 times a week at the victim's house at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant was purchased to use the defendant with the victim at around 201, and the defendant was actually used with the victim's house at around 201, and the above food table and television table agreement was actually used with the victim's house. In full view of the following circumstances, the above food table and television table were prepared by the defendant during the de facto marital life with the victim, and the goods jointly owned by the other person constitutes the property of other person, which is the object of the crime of causing property damage, the defendant's assertion in this part is without merit.
B. Although there are favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s primary offender and the victim’s refusal to punish the Defendant, the Defendant denies his own offense.