logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.08.14 2019노1413
경계침범등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have been approved by the victim, and the defendant has passed the F land in Seo-gu, Seowon-gu, Seowon-gu, the victim and the victim have been granted a loan for use with regard to the part regarding the passage of the above land.

However, since the victim unilaterally installs hump and banner on the above passage route and interferes with the defendant's business, the defendant removed hump posts, etc. and stored them in the defendant's warehouse in order to avoid such illegal deprivation.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be deemed to have concealed hump, etc., and even if concealed, the defendant's act constitutes an emergency evacuation or a justifiable act and thus there is no illegality.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rendered a judgment of innocence as to the violation of boundary and the damage of property among the facts charged.

Since the defendant appealed only for the guilty portion on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing, the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below is excluded from the scope of trial.

3. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The crime of hiding Article 366 of the Criminal Code relating to Article 1 of the Criminal Code is established by leaving property, etc. in a state in which the victim could not use property, etc. by refusing to return them without justifiable grounds. Even if the period during which the obstruction period was temporary, there was an intention to return them later.

Even if the crime of harboring property is not affected.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 71Do1576 delivered on November 23, 1971, and Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590 delivered on June 28, 2007). 201. The court below legitimately adopted the judgment below.

arrow