logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.11.16 2018고정2142
재물손괴
Text

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around November 17, 2017, Defendant A removed a copy of a public announcement that elected the representative chairperson and executive staff members of the victim F, who claimed the representative position of the Defendant and apartment occupant, at the polling station established in front of the Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Incheon, Incheon, as of November 17, 2017.

2. On November 17, 2018, Defendant B, as his wife, removed a letter of public announcement from around 16:00 to 18:00, stating that the representative director and executive staff members attached by the victim should be elected at the same place, and destroyed by means of making the payment.

3. On November 17, 2018, from around 16:00 to 18:00, Defendant C removed two copies of the public announcement stating that the president and the officers attached by the victim should be elected at the same place, and destroyed by tear.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements (as at the second public trial date);

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (to attach the records of the USB submitted by the complainants and to close a photograph of the original image);

1. The Defendants: Article 366 of the Criminal Act in relation to the pertinent criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

1. Defendants to be suspended from sentence: Fines of 500,000 won; and

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1489, Apr. 1, 2006) (see, 2006Da1448, Apr. 2, 2006)

1. The gist of the allegation is that the act of attaching the written notice of this case to a place other than the designated place under Article 38(2)(b) of the Rules of the Multi-Family Housing Management Rules or harm the aesthetic view.

arrow