logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.03.03 2016고정788
재물손괴
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is the ‘the second apartment stability promotion committee' and is currently in conflict with the victim C who is the chairperson of the Dong representative.

On February 19, 2016, the Defendant, at the request of the victim C, posted two posts in the elevator at the management office at the request of the victim C (hereinafter “instant notices”) in the second apartment B, B, 206-dong elevator at the time of strike around February 19, 2016, thereby undermining the utility of the property owned by the victim.

Judgment

According to the records, the notice of this case is owned by the representative meeting of apartment occupants who is not owned by the victim C, and the management authority of the apartment is owned by the managing body of the apartment.

I seem to appear.

In this regard, the investigation process of this case did not examine whether D's prior consent was given to the manager of the notice during the investigation process of this case, and according to D's legal statement, there was a dispute between the representatives within the representative meeting of apartment occupants at the time of the occurrence of this case, and there was a practice, such as demanding the resident to make a public notice of the notice for each other's necessity and taking the notice at the request of other resident whenever it is necessary. Accordingly, D, the manager of the management affairs, allowed the resident to take a notice without any special objection, unless there is any special circumstance, and carried out his duties by again posting a copy of the notice. At the time of this case, D will bring about the notice.

the defendant's telephone, approved it, and then posted a copy of the notice again.

A statement is made (Although D's mobile phone details are not recorded with the defendant, the defendant was given D's permission by using a personal phone call in the apartment from the beginning.

Because of its assertion, it is a personal phone.

arrow