(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노2177 | 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) 대구지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노2177

재물손괴

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (as to the guilty part) 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, and ① putting a signboard on the ground that the Defendant was placed on a signboard by a wave alone, thereby damaging the signboard.

(2) Even if it is not possible to see that the injured party installed the above signboard without permission on the land owned by the defendant, and even if the defendant demanded removal of the signboard several times, the injured party's refusal to comply with it and therefore, it constitutes a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the damage or legitimate act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment of a fine of KRW 500,00,000 sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the portion of innocence), the number of trees planted above H at the time of the Defendant’s knife of his hand (hereinafter “the instant trees”) can be sufficiently recognized as being the principal of the victim’s lawsuit.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this part is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to ownership of trees and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court with regard to an unfair sentencing (as to the conviction) is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not constitute a misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the lower court also asserted that this part of the appeal was similar to the grounds for appeal, and the lower court should be deemed to include the following cases: (a) where the utility of the Defendant is impaired by destruction or any other means, it shall be deemed that the Defendant made it difficult to play a specific role as a temporary owner of the goods, etc.; and (b) where the utility is impaired by destruction, etc

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.04.20 2017노2817

-대전지방법원 2017.10.12 2017노838

-청주지방법원 2018.05.31 2018노28

-서울북부지방법원 2017.10.27 2017노1031

-대전지방법원 2018.01.11 2017노2271