logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.07.02 2014고정4132
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)
Text

Defendant

A and B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000, respectively.

Defendant

If A and B fail to pay the above fine, 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A and B around July 10, 2014, when the victim G lending owned by the victim G in F of Incheon Spojin-gun, and when the right of retention was exercised, Defendant B, using the Draber, removed the 29 suspender portion and locking devices of the 29 suspending the sale of the victim to a third party, Defendant B supported the Defendant B by using the Draber.

As a result, Defendant A and B jointly damaged the property owned by the victim to be equivalent to KRW 2,103,00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B (as of the third trial date);

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. On-site photographs of damage to property;

1. Application of the written estimate statutes;

1. Article 2 (2) and (1) 1 of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014); Article 366 of the Criminal Act; the selection of each fine

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, of the provisional payment order;

1. The summary of the facts charged was destroyed by Defendant C together with Defendant A and B in a manner such as the date and time of the above facts charged, and at the same time and place of the above facts charged, to ensure that the amount of property owned by the victim is equivalent to KRW 2,103,000.

2. In a judgment of conviction in a criminal trial, the conviction ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a conviction that is beyond a reasonable doubt, to such a degree that the facts charged are true. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the degree that such conviction would lead to, the determination ought to be based on the defendant’s benefit even if there

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do15767, Feb. 13, 2014).

arrow