(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노7312 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노7312

재물손괴

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the witness D of the court below and the above victim were present at the time when confirming the original 1 punishment and 1 punishment of scamet (hereinafter “damages” as indicated in the facts charged of this case) as the victim of the crime of this case, the court below found the victim guilty of the above facts charged as evidence.

However, it is difficult to believe the victim's statement in a criminal trial for the fact that the victim's statement is not in conflict with the victim's statement, and that the victim's statement was not a victim of rape, and that the victim's statement in the court of original instance in E did not tear the damaged product of this case. Thus, the facts charged of this case cannot be acknowledged according to the above statement.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize the facts charged with each internal report, CCTV-cape photograph, damaged photograph, etc.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the above facts charged guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the judgment of evidence.

2. According to the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the facts that the Defendant destroyed the damaged goods of this case by following the following facts: (a) the victim’s dispute situation before and after the time when the damaged goods were returned to the victim; (b) the victim’s statement and E; and (c) the related CCTV images, etc.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is an error of law as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

① Around October 7, 2016, the Defendant sent the instant damage to the victim’s possession via a door-to-door, and the instant door-to-door was delivered to the coffee shop operated by the victim on October 8, 2016.

On the other hand, on October 4, 2016, the victim is an individual of this case and the defendant at the police around October 4, 2016.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2018.02.01 2017노717

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.14 2020노1128

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.17 2017노2317

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.12.14 2018고정862

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.02.16 2017고단75