logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.05.30 2017노4276
재물손괴
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the Defendant spreads a car at the toilet entrance and glass window, but the subject of favorable and vinyl which can be easily restored to the original state, and in fact, it was easy to restore the original state to the original state. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s aforementioned act has impaired the utility of the victim’s property.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The crime of damaging property under Article 366 of the Criminal Code is established when it damages or conceals another person's property or impairs its utility by other means. Here, the term "conscising the utility of property" means de facto making the property in a state where it cannot be provided for its original purpose of use due to appraisal, and includes temporarily making the property in a state where it cannot be used.

In particular, whether an act of writing on the wall surface of a structure or an act of throwing down garbage, etc. constitutes an act of harming the utility of the structure should be determined in accordance with social norms by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the purpose and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation, view, etc. of the structure in question, the degree of harm to the aesthetic view of the structure, inconvenience or resistance that a building users feel, the difficulty in restoring the structure to the original state, expenses incurred therein, the purpose and duration of the act, and the situation at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2590, Jun. 28, 2007). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the defendant, as soon as June 27, 2017, "the entrance" in the toilet, "the door door," "the door," "the door," "the door," "the door," "the door," "the door," "the door," in front.

arrow