beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. On May 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 17:50 on May 27, 2016, the Defendant: (b) removed a banner of the size of the area, i.e., the size of the area from which the victim E, and KRW 20,000,000 from the rail of the Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon;
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion that the crime of property damage does not constitute the element of the crime of property damage, the crime of property damage is established when a special media records, such as another person’s property, documents, or electronic records, such as electronic records, are destroyed or concealed to impair their utility by any other means (Article 366 of the Criminal Act). Here, the crime of property damage is established, even if the removal of a banner makes it impossible to perform the original function of a banner by causing damage or concealment, as well as in cases where the utility is reduced temporarily as it makes it impossible to play a specific role as a material destruction act in a state where the goods, etc. cannot be used for its original purpose, and as a temporary act of causing damage to its utility (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do9219, Nov. 25, 2016).
And as long as the defendant had awareness and intent to remove banner, the intention of damage to property is also recognized.
Defendant
This part of the defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.
B. Article 2 subparag. 2 and 9 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13805, Jan. 19, 2016; Act No. 13805, Aug. 12, 2016) separately define “multi-family housing” and “welfare facilities” as “welfare facilities” with regard to the assertion that the Defendant, a apartment management warden, has the right to manage the banner installed on the rail of apartment buildings. Article 43 of the same Act defines the neighboring living facilities falling under apartment commercial buildings as “welfare facilities” by separately defining “multi-family housing” and “welfare facilities.” The occupant is a multi-family housing with the exception of facilities sold to the general public among “welfare facilities.”