logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.08.11 2016노4036
폭행등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Defendant

In addition, by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel, the victim was not at home at the time when the defendant damaged the front door glass of the victim in Pyeongtaek-si E and the second floor on January 3, 2016. As such, in light of social norms, the defendant’s use of the brick while destroying the building was harming the life or body of the victim or a third party.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the above brick constitutes a dangerous object and found the facts charged for the destruction of the special property of this case guilty, thereby misunderstanding the legal principles as to dangerous goods for the destruction of special property of this case.

In light of the fact that the criminal defendant committed the instant crime in a contingency while under the influence of alcohol and the damage caused by the instant crime is relatively minor, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced 8 months to imprisonment is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Determination of the misapprehension of legal doctrine as to what constitutes “hazardous goods” under Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act ought to be based on whether the other party or the third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the goods in light of social norms in a specific case.

On the other hand, if another person's property is damaged by carrying a dangerous object, the other party did not recognize the existence of such dangerous object, or did not use such dangerous object to protect his/her life or body.

Even if a crime of violation of Article 369(1) of the Criminal Act is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5783, Jan. 24, 2003). The following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the bricks used by the defendant (19cm in length, 9cm in width, 9cm in width) are not originally created for the purpose of killing or destroying, but can be seen as in light of the shape, material, weight, etc.

arrow