(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2020.05.26 2020고정110

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) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2020.05.26 2020고정110

재물손괴

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 13, 2019, the Defendant: (a) at the construction site of a newly-built farm house located in Asan-si, Asan-si; (b) concealed part of a wood flue house stockpiled by the victim C, a construction business operator; (c) around November 26, 2019, by providing the remaining flue house to the victims of the name flusium; and (d) damaged a flusium worth KRW 1,379,717, which is the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. On-site and incinerated photographs, on-site photographs, and photographs on-site pictures;

1. The details of calculation of the amount of the damaged goods (the defendant and his defense counsel considered the above timber fry as wastes and partly loaded them to a third party, and therefore there is no intent to cause property damage and damage. However, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court, the victim's timber fry was not seen as a building waste in appearance, and even according to the defendant's statement, it is not worth property since the victim's timber fry was provided to a third party. It does not seem that there is no property value because it was offered to a third party. The defendant affixed a photograph while he found the victim's frying part of the timber fying as "if the victim was fyed or dyed," and affixed it to the third party after he was sufficiently aware that the victim's claim is owned by the victim. Accordingly, the defendant and his defense counsel'

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant does not have the same criminal record, and it is proved to the effect that the Defendant would collect the Victim’s house from the victim during the dispute over the termination of the contract for construction work with the victim.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.30 2015가단5331735

-대구지방법원 2015.09.18 2014가단108703

-대구지방법원 2013.07.25 2013고정1521

-대법원 2008. 12. 11. 선고 2008다54617 판결

-대전지방법원 2015.12.30 2014가단204342