logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.10.06 2016고정239
재물손괴
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 16:00 on October 18, 2015, the Defendant cut off approximately 20 meters of agricultural electric wires installed by the victim on the ground that the victim E, in order to give water to the dry field in a dry field, he made a water pool on the side of the red field.

Accordingly, the victim's claim damages the property equivalent to KRW 100,000 at the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. Photographs related to the case;

1. Investigation report (as to confirmation of shots and attachment of photographs, and the telephone conversations of the complainants);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on internal investigation;

1. Article 366 of the Criminal Act, the applicable criminal facts, the option of punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,00 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the Defendant and the defense counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion of the instant electric wires are installed on non- packing roads, and the victim did not perform his/her duties even though the victim requested removal. Thus, the removal of the instant electric wires is aimed at removing the urgent danger of traffic, and thus does not constitute an emergency evacuation or a justifiable act.

However, according to the evidence of this case, there is a risk that the removal of electric wires installed through legitimate legal procedures at the time of this case cannot be avoided.

It cannot be deemed that there is an urgent or urgent circumstance, and the victim does not arbitrarily remove the electric wires, so it cannot be deemed that the defendant has the right to remove the electric wires.

Therefore, we accept the above argument that the defendant's act does not violate social rules.

arrow