logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.02.06 2017고단2790
재물손괴등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Around February 21, 2017, the Defendant assaulted the victim, who intends to enter the camping site managed by the victim E (50 taxes) on the front of the D road located in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, on the 13:34th day of February 21, 2017, in a manner that prevents the damage, and walked the back of the damaged, once.

2. On August 19, 2017, around 05:20, the Defendant damaged the victim G’s house located in CF on the ground that the victim did not pay the balance of the construction cost, and the victim’s house did not pay the balance of the construction cost, thereby destroying the victim’s unexplosive window 4 even and even 2 even a window of the unexplosive window in the market price, the victim’s ownership.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and H in part;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. G statements;

1. 현장사진 [ 폭행 경위에 대한 피해자 E의 수사기관에서의 진술 및 이 법정에서의 증언은 ‘ 무릎으로 낭 심 부위를 찼다’ 는 주요 부분에서 일관되고 있고, 위 부분 각 진술 및 증언은 목격자인 H의 진술 및 이 법정에서의 증언 내용, 위 피해자가 그 직후 112 신고를 한 사실 등에 의하여 뒷받침되며, 달리 E, H의 각 진술 및 증언의 신빙성을 배척할 만한 객관적인 다른 자료는 없다] 법령의 적용

1. Relevant Article 260 of the Criminal Act, Articles 260 (1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act recognizes the crime of damaging property by the defendant.

However, the circumstances after the crime are very poor, such as denying the part of the crime of violence clearly committed by the defendant.

In addition, even though the defendant had been punished more than 10 times due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the crime of injury, and the crime of destroying property, etc., he did not improve his violent tendency and committed each of the crimes of this case. The crime of damaging the property of this case is considerable.

arrow