logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.06.10 2015고정181
재물손괴등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

As the representative director of C, the Defendant, from April 1, 2013 to the victim D, agreed to jointly invest and operate coffee specialty points in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E with the trade name "F."

After that, the Defendant, from January 14, 2014, caused a dispute over the operation of the said coffee specialty store and the guarantee of minimum profits with the victim, and caused the victim to unilaterally operate the said coffee specialty by changing the trade name of the said coffee specialty from around 10:00 to “G” and unilaterally, thereby cutting off the wires and straws of the frame to prevent the Defendant from engaging in business by finding the said G store together with H and I, an employee of the said C at around 10:00 on February 24, 2014, thereby damaging the said framework machine to cover approximately KRW 300,000,000, a joint ownership of the Defendant and the victim.

In addition, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s coffee store business by force, such as destroying and destroying the frame machine and removing the device.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of some police officers of H and I;

1. Written statements of J, K and L;

1. A and DKakaof course photographs [the defendant asserted that the scops were owned by the sole owner of C, but according to the entries in the joint agreement with the defendant, the articles located within the coffee specialty store in the judgment of the defendant agreed to be jointly owned by the victim and C. (the defendant appears to the purport that the validity of the joint agreement cannot be recognized. However, the defendant stated that the stamp image affixed on the above joint agreement is the representative director of C, and the defendant or C corporation did not raise any objection to the preparation of the above agreement after the preparation of the agreement around April 2013, and the validity of the joint agreement was continued.

The ownership of the E.S. press money in the judgment is owned by C and the victim.

arrow