logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.18 2015노4874
재물손괴
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) put a cre in the front door of the front door door of the representative room; and (b) carried out the door and documents inside the accessory room, and immediately put the entrance in the original condition; and (c) did not impair the utility of the entrance.

B. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine constitutes a self-help act as inevitable to recover damaged articles, such as equipment and documents, which were stolen from the Defendant’s office (A No. 1911) on May 13, 2014 by the representative D.

It is found that he did not meet the requirements for self-help under Article 23 (2) of the Korean Criminal Code.

Even if the defendant's act constitutes excessive self-help, it should be seen as constituting excessive self-help.

(c)

The sentencing sentence of 1 deliberation for the illegal accused(200,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts was made by inserting a cresh in the front door of the entrance. According to the evidence duly examined by the court of first instance, in particular, the door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door

shall not be deemed to exist.

2) In addition, in the crime of damage to property, the collapse of the property constitutes not only a case where the property cannot be used for its original purpose due to material destruction, but also a case where the property cannot be used for its specific purpose temporarily (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1057, Jul. 13, 1982, etc.). Thus, the defendant's act is deemed to be a case where the above entrance cannot be used temporarily.

3) Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the Defendant’s argument.

B. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle 1) The act of self-help under the Criminal Act

(b)" means;

arrow