logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.07.21 2014고정1881
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

The Defendant, around 14:20 on February 13, 2014, opened a door at the victim C’s house located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, on the ground that her female does not open a door, the Defendant removed a lock-out device, which is the victim’s possession attached to the front door of the seat, and paid it.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the victim's property in the amount of 270,000 won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the damaged entrance, photographs, and repair specifications;

1. Relevant Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 366 of the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the Defendant asserts that the locking device of this case is not subject to property damage as the Defendant’s possession. However, the records of this case are as follows: the Defendant and the victim are co-owners of the apartment where the locking device of this case is installed as the husband and wife in a divorce lawsuit; the victim are living in the above apartment; while the Defendant and the victim reside in the above apartment; the Defendant are living in a place different from the above apartment; and the Defendant destroyed the lock lock device of the above apartment without the victim’s consent and carried out the apartment into the apartment. In full view of the following circumstances, the locking device of this case attached to the above apartment house can be deemed as co-owned by the Defendant and the victim,

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

arrow