(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.11.11 2019노733 | 리걸엔진

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) 춘천지방법원 2020.11.11 2019노733

일반교통방해등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the damage of property among the facts charged in the instant case of mistake of facts, the head of the instant attachment hall constitutes a victim’s ownership of goods attached to the building purchased at the auction procedure, and in view of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, but acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 800,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In order for a judgment of mistake of facts to be recognized as being consistent with a real estate under Article 256 of the Civil Act, the determination shall be made by taking into account the following factors: (a) whether a movable is attached and combined to the extent that it can not be separated without causing damage to the movable or excessive expenses; and (b) whether an existing real estate may be an object of separate ownership in transaction with economic utility independent from the existing real estate in its

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15602 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the following circumstances, i.e., (i) although the head of the instant house was in dancing on the wall, the head of the instant house was structurally separated from the inner wall and was fixed on the wall of the room itself; (ii) there seems to be no big difference from the general clothes or the head of the instant house in terms of function or utility; and (iii) the owner of the instant house attached to the instant house at the investigative process and the court below claimed the ownership of the instant house attached to the instant house and there is no evidence that the victim acquired the instant house attached to the instant house from F, the entry that the owner of the instant house attached to the instant house was the victim of the instant house attached to the instant case.

However, the defendant has no legal knowledge about the auction procedure.

참조조문

-민법 제256조

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 9. 24. 선고 2009다15602 판결

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2021.03.18 2020노835

-인천지방법원 2019.06.14 2018나64118

-울산지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단67433

-서울고등법원 2016.12.15 2016나2050984

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.18 2014노1417