logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2015.07.02 2015고단67
건조물침입
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is employed by C (Gu. D3~6) and the victim E is an auction around March 2013.

Gu. Although F was established by acquiring the ownership of D 2-6 complexes, C refused to deliver them.

Gu. Only D 2 complexes were occupied and run F.

Around April 2014, the Defendant knew that there was a dispute between C and F, and then newly inserted approximately KRW 350,000,000 to C’s water tank. The victim, who became aware of such fact, notified the Defendant of F to the effect that the Defendant would not use the c’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she

Nevertheless, at around 23:21 on June 1, 2014, the Defendant intruded into a building owned by the victim, on the part of the F machine room owned by the victim in Yongdo-gun G, Jeonnam-do without obtaining consent from the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of CCTV video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes submitted by the complainant;

1. Relevant Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the claim is that the defendant intrudes on the victim's structure to operate the water pumping apparatus, and if the water pumping apparatus is not operated, it was supplied with sea water necessary to operate the water pumping apparatus, and it is inevitable to abolish the spawn, and since the defendant's unauthorized intrusion did not cause special damage to the victim, the defendant's act of intrusion on the structure in the judgment of the court below is a legitimate act that does

2. The defendant, as the head of the field office of C, intrudes upon a structure under the direction of the representative H. The following circumstances, i.e., the right to claim against I, the former owner, which are duly adopted and investigated by evidence in this Court:

arrow