logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 영동지원 2018.01.11 2017고정15
재물손괴
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 15, 2016, at around 11:00, the Defendant added the above part of the Mancheon-gun C, the part of “the part of the Mancheon-gun, which is removed from the Mancheon-gun, by removing the Mancheon-gun from the Mancheon-gun.”

In addition, there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendant's defense right in light of the content of the defendant's defense counsel and the process of the trial of this case

Since it is determined, it is recognized as above by its own authority without the amendment process of indictment.

The string of the above string, and the string of the string of the vehicle owned by the Defendant, was damaged by the towing method of the vehicle towing.

As a result, the defendant damaged a fluorial house in the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Full certificate of matters C to be registered, and screen pictures for suspect screening;

1. Application of the USB Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

3. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant, by making the victim adjoining a number of water pumps, has dismantled some of the water pumps installed in the Chungcheong-gun C (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant land”) and moves the water pumps to another place.

However, there was no damage, such as any change in the status of the pump itself, which constitutes the instant dyp, and the relocation of the instant dyp does not constitute damage.

Therefore, the defendant does not destroy the instant food house.

arrow