logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.03.20 2019고정729
건조물침입미수등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, the owner of building B, is a building contractor who performs remodeling construction works of a newly built building in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”), the owner of building B, and was in conflict with the victim as a problem of construction cost.

On January 21, 2019, the Defendant, at the above place around 09:30 on January 21, 2019, removed the locking device installed by the said victim and installed his locking device, was removed by a police officer who was dispatched to the second floor of the instant building after receiving a report from the said victim, and was in an attempt not to achieve that purpose.

Around January 10, 2019, the Defendant entered the phrase “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on several occasions, on the ground that the victim B, the owner of the building, did not pay the construction cost to the Defendant, in the “F” operated by Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and the first floor D, Yongsan-gu Seoul, and on the ground that the victim B, the owner of the building, did not pay the construction cost to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the utility by means of falling down on a building owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

"2019 Highly 729"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. Investigation report (or G telephone statement by police officers visiting the spot);

1. On-site photographs (attached to a report on internal investigation No. 7 of the evidence list) 2019, 730;

1. Legal statement of the witness B;

1. A complaint filed against E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs on damage scenes;

1. Relevant Articles 322 and 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted entry of a structure, the selection of fines) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse

1. Defendant's assertion;

A. The part of the attempted entry of a structure cannot be viewed as an intrusion because the defendant occupied the building in which he claimed the right of retention.

B. Judgment on the damage to property.

arrow