logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.11 2016고정1168
공용물건손상
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:20 on May 18, 2016, the Defendant, on the ground that police officers dispatched on the street in the front of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, were not able to keep the back of the patrol car, which is a public object, and attempted to damage the police officer’s back.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of damaged photographs and investigative reporting Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 143 and 141 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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. On May 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 22:20 on May 18, 2016, the summary of the facts charged found out of the restaurant due to the fact that police officers dispatched on the street in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City were not taking their own part; and (b) caused them to be exempted from the restaurant, which is a public object, thereby impairing the utility of property, such as holding the police patrol off, in line with the top back of the police patrol.

2. It is not sufficient to recognize that the investigation agency, court statement, and damaged photograph of the witness E alone are damaged by the Defendant’s act, such as the exclusion of the police patrol team from the police patrol team, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the attempted crime of damage to public goods in the judgment contained in the above facts charged

arrow