(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.23 2015고정1152

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.23 2015고정1152

재물손괴등

Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won;

2. Where the defendant does not pay a fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant leased and used the C hotel in his own government, B from the victim D.

1. On October 21, 2014, from around 22:30 to 15:55 the following day, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the above hotel building by demolishing the victim’s market price of the building owned by the victim who completed the delivery of the building upon receiving a judgment ordering the Defendant to deliver the building due to the termination of the lease contract.

2. After destroying and damaging the locks as above, the Defendant continued to intrude into the structure owned by the victim by entering the above building on which enforcement officers of the judgment of the District Court continued to enforce the delivery of real estate without the consent of the victim.

[Defendant’s judgment on the delivery of real estate as indicated in the judgment of the court below is unlawful by erroneous determination of the amount of the deposit for lease which the victim should return simultaneously with the delivery of real estate, and since the execution of delivery of real estate based thereon is also null and void, the Defendant still remains holding possession of the above building and thereby leaving the locks, thereby not constituting the elements of each crime, or at least unlawful. However, even if there was an error in the misapprehension of the amount of the deposit for lease which the Defendant ordered the return at the same time with the judgment ordering the delivery of real estate, the delivery execution based on this cannot be deemed null and void. According to the evidence below, since the delivery execution of this case is lawful, it is reasonable to view that the possession right of the building was transferred to the victim. Accordingly, the act of removing the locks

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Statement of delivery of real estate, application of statutes of the judgment;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act for the crime (the point of causing property damage and the choice of a fine) and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act for residential intrusion.

참조조문

-형법 제319조 제1항

-형법 제366조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2019.07.10 2019고정39

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2019.06.28 2019고정182

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.29 2013고정4986

-전주지방법원 2016.10.13 2015노1742

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.17 2019노1974