logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.06.19 2018고정27
재물손괴
Text

The defendant shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

Reasons

On September 2, 2017, the Defendant removed a total of 24 pages of “Public Notice (the second meeting of occupants’ representatives)” in the market price, which is the victim C owned by the entrance and elevator installed at the entrance and the elevator, from around September 12:30, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the victim's property.

Judgment

The fact that the defendant removed a written public notice as stated in the facts charged is recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the above act by the defendant is for the performance of duties as the chairman of the apartment election management committee, and it is likely that such act constitutes a legitimate act acceptable in light of social norms.

(1) The written public announcement of this case shall be announced by the injured party as the chairperson of the representative council of occupants.

According to the various public questions of the vice-presidential group, there was a defect in the organization of the tenant representative council elected the victim as the chairperson and the procedure for the election of the executives, and the vice-presidential group requires the re-election of the members to supplement the re-election of the executive.

Therefore, there is a question as to whether the victim has the authority to make the above public announcement as the chairperson of the tenant representative council, and there is insufficient data on the investigation record as to whether the victim has legitimate authority as the chairperson of the tenant representative council at the time of the public announcement of this case

② The Defendant was the chairperson of the apartment election management committee, and the re-election procedure for representatives by buildings was in progress at the time of the public announcement of this case.

The public notice of this case was based on the premise that the injured party is the chairperson of the tenant representative meeting as seen earlier, and there was a doubt as well as the position that the person stated as the non-observer of the meeting can be a candidate for the representative representative meeting after the re-election procedure.

Therefore, the contents of the instant notice could have an impact on the result of re-election and subsequent election of executive officers.

③ The instant publication results of the meeting.

arrow