logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.01 2016노870
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)
Text

We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

Defendant

D shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

D does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing) 1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A, D, and C) (1) did not intend the Defendants to enter the M church N for the purpose of worship or conference of worship (hereinafter “ church”).

2. Defendant A and other Defendants did not have a functional control over either the co-processing doctor or the subsequent functional act.

Defendant

D has delivered the 쇠s to other teachers on December 29, 2013, but there is no proof as to whether other teachers cut the entrance by using it.

Defendant

C There is a fact that entered the N on December 25, 2013, but there is no fact that he participated in the damaged crime.

2) Legal principles are erroneous (defendants) ① Since N is an collectively owned property of members of a church including the Defendants, it is not another’s property.

Therefore, the Defendants damaged the entrance.

Even if the crime of damage is not established, the defendants did not have the intent to commit the crime of damage and damage the property of others.

② The Defendants’ act of damaging each of the instant cases constitutes a legitimate act.

B. The remaining Defendants, other than Defendant A, asserts that each of the instant damage constituted self-help and emergency evacuation.

3) The first instance sentencing sentence against the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 700,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,000,000

B. The first deliberation sentence against the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to the above argument, Defendant A, D, and C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the members, including the Defendants, who dissented from the AJ pastor, including the Defendants, shall refuse to cover the worship in the newly-built church T, and shall read or draw up the vessels in the above N.

arrow