(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.15 2015노575 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.04.15 2015노575

재물손괴

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below found the facts charged of this case not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the defendant's summary of the grounds for appeal was credibility in the statement of C, which found that C's one ton truck was witnessed by the kn truck to damage to the kn, with a knife tool by the defendant, but the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was an old occupation, and the given that the victim C, who was in the same old occupation, reported his/her driver’s license without permission, had a very worse appraisal on the ground that he/she reported his/her driving.

On May 30, 2013, around 03:30 on May 30, 2013, the Defendant damaged 1 ton of E 1 ton truck, which is parked in the middle-gu, Daegu, Daegu, by a snife tool, four ton of E 1 ton truck owned by the victim.

B. On the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that it is difficult for C’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court to believe that the statements made in accordance with the facts of the instant construction work are difficult, and it is insufficient to recognize the instant facts charged only with the investigation report (in addition to a quotation attached), receipts, pictures of damaged vehicles, and investigation reports (in addition, the confirmation of repair costs), and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged. Thus, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove a crime, and thus, sentenced C not guilty of the Defendant pursuant to the latter part of

1) When undergoing the first investigation by the police, C, by the defendant's appearance (the head is white) the defendant was identified as a criminal. From the second police investigation to this court, C correctly testified the defendant.

As C and the defendant have made a statement, if it is obvious that C had witnessed the defendant as a criminal with the appearance of the defendant, it is hard to say that C and the defendant did not have any reason to classify the defendant as a criminal by the appearance of the defendant.

I seem to appear.

2) also.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2015.01.21 2014고정1900

-창원지방법원진주지원 2017.11.16 2016가단7605

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.09.13 2012고단2533

-대구지방법원 2016.06.29 2015노4773

-부산지방법원 2018.11.16 2018노1943