beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months and by imprisonment for Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A’s sentence (two years of suspended execution in October, and eight hours of community service order) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B1’s act of misunderstanding the legal doctrine (as to damage to public goods), there was a fact that part of the viewing building, such as the entrance, etc., such as the entrance, has been polluted to the extent that the overall use and function of the building was damaged.
In consideration of the fact that it can not be seen and easily recover, the defendant's act does not constitute the elements of the crime of damage to public goods.
Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of suspended execution in August, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.
(c)
Defendant
C The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
(d)
Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant B’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the crime of damaging public goods is established when it damages or conceals goods, etc. used by public offices, or impairs their utility by other means. Here, impairing the utility of the goods refers to de facto making the goods unable to be provided for the original purpose of use due to emotional evidence, and includes temporarily converting the goods into a state in which they cannot be used.
In particular, whether an act of writing a shot on the wall of a structure or an act of throwing down a notice or garbage constitutes an act of harming the utility of the structure or not, the purpose and function of the structure in question, the impact of the act on lighting, ventilation, view of view, etc. of the structure, and the degree of undermining the aesthetic view of the structure.