logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2021.01.14 2020고정68
재물손괴
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 17, 2020, the Defendant destroyed dry field located in Chungcheongnamyang-gun B, Chungcheongnam-do, by extracting approximately 4,500 U.S. seeds and seedlings equivalent to the total market value of 15 U.S. owned by the victim, who was planted by the victim at this place, due to disputes over the boundary between the victim C and the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's written statement C as to the police's partial statement C, as well as a statement of the police's photographs, a certified copy of the cadastral map, and the result of surveying the restoration of boundaries, one copy of the judgment (as the damaged seedlings were planted on the land owned by the defendant, the defendant did not have any damage to another's property and did not have any intention of damage.

According to the above evidence, the defendant was found to be the spouse of the victim C in this Court on February 2, 2017.

The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1,500,00 for a criminal fact, such as “a tree 1glus and nine glus trees were damaged by means of cutting or cutting down trees.” The Defendant appealed and filed a final appeal, but all of which were dismissed. In addition, in light of all circumstances, such as the victim’s investigation agency’s statement in the victim C’s investigation agency, a copy of the cadastral map, etc., the Defendant appears to have been planted on the land owned by the victim, not the land owned by the Defendant. In addition, in regard to the boundary of the above land, the Defendant appears to have been planted on the land owned by the victim, not the land owned by the Defendant, and there was a dispute between the Defendant and the victim for a long time regarding the boundary of the above land, and there was an intention to damage the Defendant, considering that the Defendant was the victim, not the Defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted] Application of the statute

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime and Article 366 of the choice of punishment;

1. Attraction of a workhouse;

arrow