logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.01.10 2013노3109
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복범죄등)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Unlike general restaurants and main stations, the inspection camera is a key factor in determining its completeness or cleanness in the case of collection equipment, such as floor rectangulars, tables, chairs, etc. inside the camera, as it is sold to the core image of the Kapete or inside and outside the Kapet, and thus, it is an important factor in determining its utility.

According to the photograph, victim's statement, etc., it is evident that the defendant had a ice on the Kapet floor by melting the salt dilution system and caused defects in the house, and thus, it is evident that the above floor taf business related to the carpet business, the table tabs and chairs's utility has been temporarily harmed at least temporarily.

Nevertheless, the lower court’s decision that acquitted the Defendant as to the damage of property was erroneous by mistake or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. In recognition of the criminal intent of causing damage to property, the intent of planned damage or actively wish to damage the property is not necessarily required, and there is awareness about the loss of the utility of the property against the owner’s will. Here, that the utility of the property is harmed not only by making it impossible to use the property for its original purpose, but also by making it impossible to use it in a state of temporary use.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Do2701 delivered on December 7, 1993, etc.). B.

Judgment

1) The following facts are acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court. A) On September 25, 2012, the Defendant called “D” in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si C (hereinafter “instant car page”) around 22:00.

arrow